I find it hard to see you all upset. The real ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death. For the entire 27 years of occupation, the number Azerbaijanis lived there was goddamns ZERO. Entire towns and cities were looted and destroyed. British journalist Thomas De Waal even referred to Aghdam as the "Hiroshima of the Caucasus" after visiting the region.
When Azerbaijan liberated these lands, it offered Armenians the option to stay if they wished. However, as these territories are internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan (even Armenia itself acknowledges Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan), there will be no special status, autonomy, or illegal entities.
Nevertheless, Armenians living there chose not to be part of Azerbaijan.
Regarding civilian casualties, please provide clear numbers. If this were genocide or genuine ethnic cleansing, there would be hundreds of civilian casualties. Even your government's statements claim a maximum of 10 civilian casualties, which seems unlikely.
Thanks for this. Always interesting to see how Foreign Secretaries communicate. Will you consider doing a Q&A on Progressive Realism for subscribers on here?
> Azerbaijan has been able to liberate territory it lost in the early 1990s.
How much did Aliyev pay you? How much does it cost these days to get the British Foreign Secretary to abet ethnic cleansing by murderous dictators? Asking for a friend
I find it hard to see you all upset. The real ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death. For the entire 27 years of occupation, no Azerbaijanis lived there. Entire towns and cities were looted and destroyed. British journalist Thomas De Waal even referred to Aghdam as the "Hiroshima of the Caucasus" after visiting the region.
When Azerbaijan liberated these lands, it offered Armenians the option to stay if they wished. However, as these territories are internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan (even Armenia itself acknowledges Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan), there will be no special status, autonomy, or illegal entities.
Nevertheless, Armenians living there chose not to be part of Azerbaijan.
Regarding civilian casualties, please provide clear numbers. If this were genocide or genuine ethnic cleansing, there would be hundreds of civilian casualties. Even your government's statements claim a maximum of 10 civilian casualties, which seems unlikely.
> Ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death.
True. But crimes committed decades ago do not justify committing more crimes against innocents today. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The corrupt Armenian leaders who directed abuses in the 90s have been out of power for years, but Azerbaijan remains a dictatorship and continues to commit war crimes to this day.
> When Azerbaijan liberated these lands, it offered Armenians the option to stay if they wished.
Lol. Lmao. The Aliyev regime has systematically destroyed religious and heritage sites, locks up political dissidents, tortures prisoners. No sane person would trust its “mercy”.
Azerbaijan did not "liberate" anything. They ethnically cleansed 120,000 Armenians from their own homeland, and this was preceded by beheadings of civilians and a 9 month blockade serving to starve the population.
The real ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death. For the entire 27 years of occupation, no Azerbaijanis lived there. Entire towns and cities were looted and destroyed. British journalist Thomas De Waal even referred to Aghdam as the "Hiroshima of the Caucasus" after visiting the region.
When Azerbaijan liberated these lands, it offered Armenians the option to stay if they wished. However, as these territories are internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan (even Armenia itself acknowledges Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan), there will be no special status, autonomy, or illegal entities.
Nevertheless, Armenians living there chose not to be part of Azerbaijan.
Regarding civilian casualties, please provide clear numbers. If this were genocide or genuine ethnic cleansing, there would be hundreds of civilian casualties. Even your government's statements claim a maximum of 10 civilian casualties, which seems unlikely.
Those Azerbaijanis were not "ethnically cleansed", unless you believe hundreds of thousands of Armenians across mainland Azerbaijan were also ethnically cleansed beforehand. They rose up as part of a Turanist project to finish off the Armenians and suppress all their potential rights.
Your claim that Karabakh Armenians were offered an option to stay is nonsense. Azerbaijan's identity is based on its hatred for Armenians, every Armenian that once lived in mainland Azerbaijan has been ethnically cleansed, and most Armenian civilians the Azerbaijani military crossed paths with was beheaded or executed in some other medieval fashion.
What exactly was the point in "liberating" Karabakh anyway? For it to become a hellhole like the rest of Azerbaijan? The people in Nagorno-Karabakh enjoyed higher salaries, better healthcare and more freedoms than the people of Azerbaijan. Most Azerbaijanis see their future and their country as hopeless, and the conquest and ethnic cleansing of the Armenians living there will only spread Azerbaijan's misery and poverty.
As I said, can you please share the clear numbers of civilian casualties, please? It was just a year ago, not decades or centuries. If it was an attempt to genocide or ethnic cleansing, there would be dozens of civilian death, minimum.
> If it was an attempt to genocide or ethnic cleansing, there would be dozens of civilian death, minimum.
No, ethnic cleansing doesn’t require mass killing of civilians, only mass-deporting them by force. Thankfully, there was no genocide this time. (Some pro-Armenian activists overuse the g-word, I agree with you that they are wrong to do this.)
“Night after night, they prepare for another round of Russian strikes.”
Many of those strikes originate from targets within Russia that are in range of British supplied long range weapons… that your government forbids Ukraine from striking with those weapons. Will you be changing your policy?
Really interesting to get a view on the inner workings of foreign affairs. As someone noted below, it would be great to get a primer on what exactly 'Progressive Realism' is, and how it differs from Realism in foreign policy.
I think we've read enough from him here to know what he means by "Progressive". On Realism, while we can infer from Kenneth Waltz his recommendations for foreign policy, which I might try to do in a future post, John Mearsheimer is explicit that his theory of IR allows him to advocate for specific guidelines to a Realist Foreign Policy.
They revolve around the idea that the anarchic nature of the international system compels not just Great Powers but all states to act aggressively to ensure their survival and maximise their power relative to others.
So the UK should focus on power, security, and national interests rather than ideological commitments or moralistic pursuits.
The UK should work to maintain its influence and dominance in its immediate region. This would involve preserving a leadership role in Europe, especially regarding security and defence. Given the UK's exit from the EU, the UK pursue strong bilateral and multilateral security ties, particularly through NATO, to ensure that no single power dominates Europe.
The UK should continue to be wary of any single European state like Germany or Russia) or external actor like China or the USA attempting to exert excessive influence in Europe.
His Majesty's Government should align with other Powers when national interests align. For the UK, this means maintaining a close relationship with the US, which has traditionally been its strongest ally. The so-called "special relationship" between the UK and the US is vital because the US is the leading global power, and aligning with it enhances the UK's security and influence.
As Foreign Secretary, David Lammy should navigate carefully between the USA and PRC. While the UK should support US efforts to contain China's rise, it would also have to ensure that it does not engage too deeply in an ideological confrontation, such as by blindly following US democracy-promotion efforts, which could lead to costly entanglements.
He should not engage in idealistic foreign policy missions, such as promoting democracy, or intervening for humanitarian reasons, which often lead to overreach. he should avoid participation in interventions that are not directly tied to the UK's national interest or security, particularly in regions far from Europe, like the Middle East or Africa.
In line with realist principles, the UK should treat Russia as a significant power in Europe and focus on balancing its influence rather than pushing for liberal policies like democracy promotion in the post-Soviet space. While the UK should work to contain Russian expansionism (as seen in Ukraine or other Eastern European countries), it should do so in ways that prioritise stability over ideological confrontation.
The UK should engage with Russia where it serves its national interests (like counter-terrorism or trade) but ensure that it contributes to a broader balance of power in Europe, particularly in Eastern Europe.
A core aspect of realism is the notion that national power is ultimately derived from economic and military strength. For the UK, this means continuing to invest in its defence capabilities, modernising its military, and ensuring that its economy is competitive globally. The UK should not become overly dependent on foreign trade with potential rivals like China, so Lammy within the Starmer Cabinet should be advocating for more self-reliant policies to avoid becoming vulnerable to external pressures.
The UK should remain a major military power in Europe, ensuring that it can act independently or in concert with NATO in the event of regional crises.
As China rises, the UK should view China's growing power with caution. The UK should contribute to efforts that contain China's influence globally, especially in areas where Chinese economic and political influence could directly threaten UK interests. However, it would be crucial to avoid actions that may unnecessarily provoke conflict with China unless UK security is at stake.
In practice, this means ensuring that the UK is not overly reliant on Chinese investment in critical infrastructure (such as 5G networks, ports, nuclear energy, battery power and soalr panels) and supporting global efforts to counter China's growing influence in international organisations.
International institutions can still be useful tools for enhancing the UK's influence. The UK should participate in these institutions (such as the UN and the WTO) pragmatically, using them to serve its interests but not placing undue faith in their ability to maintain global peace and stability.
The UK, as a significant military power, can use its position within NATO to shape the alliance’s strategic goals in a way that aligns with its own security interests, particularly in maintaining the U.S commitment to European defence.
The UK can still exercise influence in certain strategic areas, such as the Middle East (due to its historical ties and alliances), the North Atlantic, and regions like the Indo-Pacific where it has allies like Australia. The UK's policy should be to project power where it has strategic interests, without overextending itself.
The UK should participate in regional security efforts like the AUKUS pact to counter China's influence in the Indo-Pacific, but with a clear understanding of what tangible benefits such actions bring to UK security.
In his essay, Lammy contrasts the UK's current challenges with the optimism of the past when Tony Blair led the Labour Party to victory in 1997. Back then, the UK wielded more global influence, but today it faces diminished economic power, a crowded and multipolar geopolitical landscape, and the impacts of climate change. Over the last 14 years, the Conservatives are criticized for turning inward, mishandling Brexit, neglecting climate policies, and undermining the UK's global standing, particularly in the Global South.
He promises to adopt a "progressive realism" approach, blending pragmatic foreign policy with progressive goals such as combating climate change, defending democracy, and addressing economic inequalities. Drawing on the legacies of former foreign secretaries Ernest Bevin and Robin Cook, Labour's proposed policy would combine hard-headed realism with ethical dimensions, aiming to rebuild the UK's international leadership.
Lammy highlights the shifting global order, particularly the rise of China, the waning influence of Western democracies, and the increasing power of states like India and Brazil. These countries are charting independent paths, often ignoring Western interests. The Labour Party's strategy would seek to address these global shifts while avoiding the past mistakes of liberal interventionism and Western inaction.
The UK's foreign policy must prioritize addressing global security, with a foundation in its relationships with the United States and Europe. These ties must evolve, as the US shifts its focus toward Asia and expects Europe to share more security burdens. The UK needs stronger cooperation with the EU, particularly in the face of conflicts like the Ukraine war, which will be critical for European security. Labour proposes a new security pact with the EU and strengthening ties with key European nations like France, Germany, and Poland.
In addition to Europe, the UK must deepen engagement in the Indo-Pacific, building on initiatives like AUKUS and pursuing closer ties with Japan, South Korea, and India. A consistent strategy toward China is needed, one that balances competition and cooperation, recognizing China’s economic importance while addressing security concerns.
Labour’s "progressive realism" seeks to support state sovereignty, notably for Ukraine, Israel, and Palestine, and would push for a two-state solution. In the global South, Labour would emphasize partnerships, focusing on climate cooperation and fairer global trade, moving away from an outdated aid model. It also calls for international cooperation on regulating emerging technologies like AI to prevent misuse and maintain democratic values.
HMG must focus on revitalising the economy to achieve sustained growth, particularly through enhanced economic diplomacy. PM Starmer aims to deliver the highest growth in the G-7, with a focus on rebuilding trade relationships with Europe, India, and the US, without revisiting Brexit. Labour plans to leverage public investment to boost private capital, particularly in green technologies like hydrogen, renewable energy, and green steel. A national wealth fund would drive investments in climate-friendly industries.
Labour also envisions the UK leading in climate diplomacy, promoting global decarbonisation through initiatives like a "clean power alliance" and reforming financial institutions to support climate adaptation. Domestically, Labour plans to stop issuing new oil and gas exploration licenses and aims to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 with a massive expansion in renewable energy. International cooperation and new climate partnerships are key to this vision.
In a world facing rising conflict and climate crises, the UK must leverage its strengths, including its economy, technology, and alliances, to restore global leadership. Labour’s foreign policy will balance progressive ideals with realism, ensuring that the UK plays a constructive role in solving global challenges while securing its national and regional security.
On the perhaps naive assumption that the Foreign Secretary reads or is made aware of these comments, permit me to share views from an interested observer from the U.S.
First, while having amicable relations with your interlocutors on a personal level is unobjectionable, I would expect the Foreign Secretary to take on board Lord Palmerston dictum to the House of Commons in 1848, “Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
Second, Ukraine is facing an enemy that does not recognize its legitimacy as a nation, its right to remain sovereign or long history of attachment to the land. That enemy, Russia, sought Ukraine’s absorption into Mother Russia.
It is important to understand that Ukraine’s borders were set at its 1991 declaration of independence under the international law doctrine of uti possidetis juris. That doctrine makes any pro-Russian plebiscite and annexation of any part of Ukraine illegal under international law.
Third, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is, primarily, a European matter, and the US’s involvement is the direct result of decades of Western European countries taking the wrong lessons from its World Wars, downsizing their militaries and assuming that “soft power” would guarantee their peace. All those countries now must raise their defense spending accordingly so that they may become more like Israel: able to defend themselves by themselves. What is the Foreign Secretary’s understanding of this issue?
Fourth, with China as America’s primary antagonist, Europe needs to shoulder a greater burden on its home territory. While the continent is “too big to fail” for our foreign policy, simply put it is asking a great deal of American taxpayers to foot a bill that should be a pan-European responsibility.
Finally, what is missing from this piece is a strategy to defeat Russia and roll back its gains. If peace will come at the expense of ceding territory to an aggressor, then the public needs to know that - unless the point of this Substack is to be a travelogue.
I will look forward to the Foreign Secretary’s take on Israel. I hope he will address, among other issues,
1. The thinking behind supporting Egypt’s sealing of its border to all Gazan civilians, thereby trapping them in a combat zone - and then primarily blaming Israel for any civilian casualties,
2. The thinking behind doing nothing to prevent Hamas’ stealing food and energy supplies being sent into Gaza and blaming Israel for any nutritional deficits,
3. The UK’s plan to remove Hamas as the governing entity in Gaza,
4. The acceptance of legal advise to justify canceling only certain export licenses to Israel where that advice was grounded in a reversal of the burden of proof and standard of review applied to every other country, including Qatar, the terror supporting ally of Iran, and
5. The acceptance of Hamas generated casualty figures and descriptions of events in Gaza in the face of contrary findings by well respected former UK military officials showing that the IDF has exceeded the requirements of the Laws of Armed Conflict and
6. Why the UK does not push back against the false claim of “genocide” which, left unchallenged, has evidently placed a target on the back of every Jew in the UK? If the UK has long ago concluded, as it should have under any fair reading of the evidence, that Israel is not commuting any genocide and the charge itself is scurrilous, does it not owe it to the world community to proclaim this fact publicly and loudly or would such a declaration of moral clarity risk undermining “community cohesion” back home?
I was looking forward to reading this column until your leader, Mr Starmer, took us back to Regressive Realism with his tone deaf acceptance of £100,000 of donor gifts as he backs cutting off the winter fuel allowance to pensioners. I voted in hope of change from the dirty Tory politics of recent decades. Angry, disappointed and depressed. It’s as big a gaff as Liam Byrne’s infamous note - ‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ Kick Starmer’s arse please Mr Lammy and tell him to apologise, reverse the winter fuel cut and promise not to be such an idiot going forward.
Do not write anything before educating yourself on the subject. What Azerbaijan did is hard to call a "liberation of territories". It was ethnic cleansing and now cultural genocide with appropriation of rich Armenian heritage of that land. Britain's foreign minister should not sound like a corrupt journalist.
"Azerbaijan has been able to liberate territory it lost in the early 1990s."
What the actual fuck?
This essay will now be dragged out by every two-bit thug on the planet whenever the UK complains about ethnic cleansing. Thanks a lot.
I find it hard to see you all upset. The real ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death. For the entire 27 years of occupation, the number Azerbaijanis lived there was goddamns ZERO. Entire towns and cities were looted and destroyed. British journalist Thomas De Waal even referred to Aghdam as the "Hiroshima of the Caucasus" after visiting the region.
When Azerbaijan liberated these lands, it offered Armenians the option to stay if they wished. However, as these territories are internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan (even Armenia itself acknowledges Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan), there will be no special status, autonomy, or illegal entities.
Nevertheless, Armenians living there chose not to be part of Azerbaijan.
Regarding civilian casualties, please provide clear numbers. If this were genocide or genuine ethnic cleansing, there would be hundreds of civilian casualties. Even your government's statements claim a maximum of 10 civilian casualties, which seems unlikely.
> The real ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death.
Armenian leaders having committed crimes decades ago does not absolve Azeri leaders of the crimes they commit today.
Thanks for this. Always interesting to see how Foreign Secretaries communicate. Will you consider doing a Q&A on Progressive Realism for subscribers on here?
Ok
> Azerbaijan has been able to liberate territory it lost in the early 1990s.
How much did Aliyev pay you? How much does it cost these days to get the British Foreign Secretary to abet ethnic cleansing by murderous dictators? Asking for a friend
I find it hard to see you all upset. The real ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death. For the entire 27 years of occupation, no Azerbaijanis lived there. Entire towns and cities were looted and destroyed. British journalist Thomas De Waal even referred to Aghdam as the "Hiroshima of the Caucasus" after visiting the region.
When Azerbaijan liberated these lands, it offered Armenians the option to stay if they wished. However, as these territories are internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan (even Armenia itself acknowledges Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan), there will be no special status, autonomy, or illegal entities.
Nevertheless, Armenians living there chose not to be part of Azerbaijan.
Regarding civilian casualties, please provide clear numbers. If this were genocide or genuine ethnic cleansing, there would be hundreds of civilian casualties. Even your government's statements claim a maximum of 10 civilian casualties, which seems unlikely.
> Ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death.
True. But crimes committed decades ago do not justify committing more crimes against innocents today. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The corrupt Armenian leaders who directed abuses in the 90s have been out of power for years, but Azerbaijan remains a dictatorship and continues to commit war crimes to this day.
> When Azerbaijan liberated these lands, it offered Armenians the option to stay if they wished.
Lol. Lmao. The Aliyev regime has systematically destroyed religious and heritage sites, locks up political dissidents, tortures prisoners. No sane person would trust its “mercy”.
Azerbaijan did not "liberate" anything. They ethnically cleansed 120,000 Armenians from their own homeland, and this was preceded by beheadings of civilians and a 9 month blockade serving to starve the population.
Evil statement.
The real ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death. For the entire 27 years of occupation, no Azerbaijanis lived there. Entire towns and cities were looted and destroyed. British journalist Thomas De Waal even referred to Aghdam as the "Hiroshima of the Caucasus" after visiting the region.
When Azerbaijan liberated these lands, it offered Armenians the option to stay if they wished. However, as these territories are internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan (even Armenia itself acknowledges Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan), there will be no special status, autonomy, or illegal entities.
Nevertheless, Armenians living there chose not to be part of Azerbaijan.
Regarding civilian casualties, please provide clear numbers. If this were genocide or genuine ethnic cleansing, there would be hundreds of civilian casualties. Even your government's statements claim a maximum of 10 civilian casualties, which seems unlikely.
Those Azerbaijanis were not "ethnically cleansed", unless you believe hundreds of thousands of Armenians across mainland Azerbaijan were also ethnically cleansed beforehand. They rose up as part of a Turanist project to finish off the Armenians and suppress all their potential rights.
Your claim that Karabakh Armenians were offered an option to stay is nonsense. Azerbaijan's identity is based on its hatred for Armenians, every Armenian that once lived in mainland Azerbaijan has been ethnically cleansed, and most Armenian civilians the Azerbaijani military crossed paths with was beheaded or executed in some other medieval fashion.
What exactly was the point in "liberating" Karabakh anyway? For it to become a hellhole like the rest of Azerbaijan? The people in Nagorno-Karabakh enjoyed higher salaries, better healthcare and more freedoms than the people of Azerbaijan. Most Azerbaijanis see their future and their country as hopeless, and the conquest and ethnic cleansing of the Armenians living there will only spread Azerbaijan's misery and poverty.
> The real ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death.
Armenian leaders having committed crimes decades ago does not absolve Azeri leaders of the crimes they commit today.
As I said, can you please share the clear numbers of civilian casualties, please? It was just a year ago, not decades or centuries. If it was an attempt to genocide or ethnic cleansing, there would be dozens of civilian death, minimum.
> If it was an attempt to genocide or ethnic cleansing, there would be dozens of civilian death, minimum.
No, ethnic cleansing doesn’t require mass killing of civilians, only mass-deporting them by force. Thankfully, there was no genocide this time. (Some pro-Armenian activists overuse the g-word, I agree with you that they are wrong to do this.)
“Night after night, they prepare for another round of Russian strikes.”
Many of those strikes originate from targets within Russia that are in range of British supplied long range weapons… that your government forbids Ukraine from striking with those weapons. Will you be changing your policy?
Vacuous nonsense.
But kudos for using substack and trying to reach out to a different audience.
i give it about 2 months until you start blogging about how voices on Substack you disagree with should be censored
We'll see
Lol 😆
Really interesting to get a view on the inner workings of foreign affairs. As someone noted below, it would be great to get a primer on what exactly 'Progressive Realism' is, and how it differs from Realism in foreign policy.
I think we've read enough from him here to know what he means by "Progressive". On Realism, while we can infer from Kenneth Waltz his recommendations for foreign policy, which I might try to do in a future post, John Mearsheimer is explicit that his theory of IR allows him to advocate for specific guidelines to a Realist Foreign Policy.
They revolve around the idea that the anarchic nature of the international system compels not just Great Powers but all states to act aggressively to ensure their survival and maximise their power relative to others.
So the UK should focus on power, security, and national interests rather than ideological commitments or moralistic pursuits.
The UK should work to maintain its influence and dominance in its immediate region. This would involve preserving a leadership role in Europe, especially regarding security and defence. Given the UK's exit from the EU, the UK pursue strong bilateral and multilateral security ties, particularly through NATO, to ensure that no single power dominates Europe.
The UK should continue to be wary of any single European state like Germany or Russia) or external actor like China or the USA attempting to exert excessive influence in Europe.
His Majesty's Government should align with other Powers when national interests align. For the UK, this means maintaining a close relationship with the US, which has traditionally been its strongest ally. The so-called "special relationship" between the UK and the US is vital because the US is the leading global power, and aligning with it enhances the UK's security and influence.
As Foreign Secretary, David Lammy should navigate carefully between the USA and PRC. While the UK should support US efforts to contain China's rise, it would also have to ensure that it does not engage too deeply in an ideological confrontation, such as by blindly following US democracy-promotion efforts, which could lead to costly entanglements.
He should not engage in idealistic foreign policy missions, such as promoting democracy, or intervening for humanitarian reasons, which often lead to overreach. he should avoid participation in interventions that are not directly tied to the UK's national interest or security, particularly in regions far from Europe, like the Middle East or Africa.
In line with realist principles, the UK should treat Russia as a significant power in Europe and focus on balancing its influence rather than pushing for liberal policies like democracy promotion in the post-Soviet space. While the UK should work to contain Russian expansionism (as seen in Ukraine or other Eastern European countries), it should do so in ways that prioritise stability over ideological confrontation.
The UK should engage with Russia where it serves its national interests (like counter-terrorism or trade) but ensure that it contributes to a broader balance of power in Europe, particularly in Eastern Europe.
A core aspect of realism is the notion that national power is ultimately derived from economic and military strength. For the UK, this means continuing to invest in its defence capabilities, modernising its military, and ensuring that its economy is competitive globally. The UK should not become overly dependent on foreign trade with potential rivals like China, so Lammy within the Starmer Cabinet should be advocating for more self-reliant policies to avoid becoming vulnerable to external pressures.
The UK should remain a major military power in Europe, ensuring that it can act independently or in concert with NATO in the event of regional crises.
As China rises, the UK should view China's growing power with caution. The UK should contribute to efforts that contain China's influence globally, especially in areas where Chinese economic and political influence could directly threaten UK interests. However, it would be crucial to avoid actions that may unnecessarily provoke conflict with China unless UK security is at stake.
In practice, this means ensuring that the UK is not overly reliant on Chinese investment in critical infrastructure (such as 5G networks, ports, nuclear energy, battery power and soalr panels) and supporting global efforts to counter China's growing influence in international organisations.
International institutions can still be useful tools for enhancing the UK's influence. The UK should participate in these institutions (such as the UN and the WTO) pragmatically, using them to serve its interests but not placing undue faith in their ability to maintain global peace and stability.
The UK, as a significant military power, can use its position within NATO to shape the alliance’s strategic goals in a way that aligns with its own security interests, particularly in maintaining the U.S commitment to European defence.
The UK can still exercise influence in certain strategic areas, such as the Middle East (due to its historical ties and alliances), the North Atlantic, and regions like the Indo-Pacific where it has allies like Australia. The UK's policy should be to project power where it has strategic interests, without overextending itself.
The UK should participate in regional security efforts like the AUKUS pact to counter China's influence in the Indo-Pacific, but with a clear understanding of what tangible benefits such actions bring to UK security.
this may be a good start on what Progressive Realism is
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-kingdom/case-progressive-realism-david-lammy
The only thing worse than delusional ramblings are delusional ramblings behind a paywall.
In his essay, Lammy contrasts the UK's current challenges with the optimism of the past when Tony Blair led the Labour Party to victory in 1997. Back then, the UK wielded more global influence, but today it faces diminished economic power, a crowded and multipolar geopolitical landscape, and the impacts of climate change. Over the last 14 years, the Conservatives are criticized for turning inward, mishandling Brexit, neglecting climate policies, and undermining the UK's global standing, particularly in the Global South.
He promises to adopt a "progressive realism" approach, blending pragmatic foreign policy with progressive goals such as combating climate change, defending democracy, and addressing economic inequalities. Drawing on the legacies of former foreign secretaries Ernest Bevin and Robin Cook, Labour's proposed policy would combine hard-headed realism with ethical dimensions, aiming to rebuild the UK's international leadership.
Lammy highlights the shifting global order, particularly the rise of China, the waning influence of Western democracies, and the increasing power of states like India and Brazil. These countries are charting independent paths, often ignoring Western interests. The Labour Party's strategy would seek to address these global shifts while avoiding the past mistakes of liberal interventionism and Western inaction.
The UK's foreign policy must prioritize addressing global security, with a foundation in its relationships with the United States and Europe. These ties must evolve, as the US shifts its focus toward Asia and expects Europe to share more security burdens. The UK needs stronger cooperation with the EU, particularly in the face of conflicts like the Ukraine war, which will be critical for European security. Labour proposes a new security pact with the EU and strengthening ties with key European nations like France, Germany, and Poland.
In addition to Europe, the UK must deepen engagement in the Indo-Pacific, building on initiatives like AUKUS and pursuing closer ties with Japan, South Korea, and India. A consistent strategy toward China is needed, one that balances competition and cooperation, recognizing China’s economic importance while addressing security concerns.
Labour’s "progressive realism" seeks to support state sovereignty, notably for Ukraine, Israel, and Palestine, and would push for a two-state solution. In the global South, Labour would emphasize partnerships, focusing on climate cooperation and fairer global trade, moving away from an outdated aid model. It also calls for international cooperation on regulating emerging technologies like AI to prevent misuse and maintain democratic values.
HMG must focus on revitalising the economy to achieve sustained growth, particularly through enhanced economic diplomacy. PM Starmer aims to deliver the highest growth in the G-7, with a focus on rebuilding trade relationships with Europe, India, and the US, without revisiting Brexit. Labour plans to leverage public investment to boost private capital, particularly in green technologies like hydrogen, renewable energy, and green steel. A national wealth fund would drive investments in climate-friendly industries.
Labour also envisions the UK leading in climate diplomacy, promoting global decarbonisation through initiatives like a "clean power alliance" and reforming financial institutions to support climate adaptation. Domestically, Labour plans to stop issuing new oil and gas exploration licenses and aims to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 with a massive expansion in renewable energy. International cooperation and new climate partnerships are key to this vision.
In a world facing rising conflict and climate crises, the UK must leverage its strengths, including its economy, technology, and alliances, to restore global leadership. Labour’s foreign policy will balance progressive ideals with realism, ensuring that the UK plays a constructive role in solving global challenges while securing its national and regional security.
On the perhaps naive assumption that the Foreign Secretary reads or is made aware of these comments, permit me to share views from an interested observer from the U.S.
First, while having amicable relations with your interlocutors on a personal level is unobjectionable, I would expect the Foreign Secretary to take on board Lord Palmerston dictum to the House of Commons in 1848, “Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
Second, Ukraine is facing an enemy that does not recognize its legitimacy as a nation, its right to remain sovereign or long history of attachment to the land. That enemy, Russia, sought Ukraine’s absorption into Mother Russia.
It is important to understand that Ukraine’s borders were set at its 1991 declaration of independence under the international law doctrine of uti possidetis juris. That doctrine makes any pro-Russian plebiscite and annexation of any part of Ukraine illegal under international law.
Third, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is, primarily, a European matter, and the US’s involvement is the direct result of decades of Western European countries taking the wrong lessons from its World Wars, downsizing their militaries and assuming that “soft power” would guarantee their peace. All those countries now must raise their defense spending accordingly so that they may become more like Israel: able to defend themselves by themselves. What is the Foreign Secretary’s understanding of this issue?
Fourth, with China as America’s primary antagonist, Europe needs to shoulder a greater burden on its home territory. While the continent is “too big to fail” for our foreign policy, simply put it is asking a great deal of American taxpayers to foot a bill that should be a pan-European responsibility.
Finally, what is missing from this piece is a strategy to defeat Russia and roll back its gains. If peace will come at the expense of ceding territory to an aggressor, then the public needs to know that - unless the point of this Substack is to be a travelogue.
I will look forward to the Foreign Secretary’s take on Israel. I hope he will address, among other issues,
1. The thinking behind supporting Egypt’s sealing of its border to all Gazan civilians, thereby trapping them in a combat zone - and then primarily blaming Israel for any civilian casualties,
2. The thinking behind doing nothing to prevent Hamas’ stealing food and energy supplies being sent into Gaza and blaming Israel for any nutritional deficits,
3. The UK’s plan to remove Hamas as the governing entity in Gaza,
4. The acceptance of legal advise to justify canceling only certain export licenses to Israel where that advice was grounded in a reversal of the burden of proof and standard of review applied to every other country, including Qatar, the terror supporting ally of Iran, and
5. The acceptance of Hamas generated casualty figures and descriptions of events in Gaza in the face of contrary findings by well respected former UK military officials showing that the IDF has exceeded the requirements of the Laws of Armed Conflict and
6. Why the UK does not push back against the false claim of “genocide” which, left unchallenged, has evidently placed a target on the back of every Jew in the UK? If the UK has long ago concluded, as it should have under any fair reading of the evidence, that Israel is not commuting any genocide and the charge itself is scurrilous, does it not owe it to the world community to proclaim this fact publicly and loudly or would such a declaration of moral clarity risk undermining “community cohesion” back home?
I look forward to reading the Secretary’s response to these key questions about those who were slaves in Egypt.
With your shared interest in music, I do hope to see you and Tony jam together with your take on Rocking in the Free World.
Blinken is likable but savage pro war Neocon. “Rules based”. He could end up igniting WW3 having already provoked the war in Ukraine.
I was looking forward to reading this column until your leader, Mr Starmer, took us back to Regressive Realism with his tone deaf acceptance of £100,000 of donor gifts as he backs cutting off the winter fuel allowance to pensioners. I voted in hope of change from the dirty Tory politics of recent decades. Angry, disappointed and depressed. It’s as big a gaff as Liam Byrne’s infamous note - ‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ Kick Starmer’s arse please Mr Lammy and tell him to apologise, reverse the winter fuel cut and promise not to be such an idiot going forward.
This is wonderful…so grateful for your willingness to share your expertise and insight. 🌻🇺🇦🌻
Good to have you here David. Thank you for standing up for Ukrainians and thank you for standing up for the people of Grenfell.
Thanks for clarity and measure.
Do not write anything before educating yourself on the subject. What Azerbaijan did is hard to call a "liberation of territories". It was ethnic cleansing and now cultural genocide with appropriation of rich Armenian heritage of that land. Britain's foreign minister should not sound like a corrupt journalist.