Quite the claim. The Hackney and Stoke Newington MP and current ‘Mother of the House’ is simply not having it, that Russia could pose a real and imminent threat to the United Kingdom. In contrast, we’ve so regularly heard from senior figures in recent times from across the political aisle that the threat is more than real, and that we should be doing all we can to prepare for and counter it.
Labour do indeed have a defence spending target of 3.5% of GDP by 2035, and whilst there are some disagreements across the House on the exact figures and timelines, the broad general consensus is that defence spending does need to increase. And increase quickly. Isn’t it nice to all agree on something for once? But we should consider her argument for a minute… I’ve considered it. It’s wrong. And here’s why.
In order to accept the threat as ‘NATO fiction’, as she characterises, the key here would be the presence of a motive. A motive for NATO to want to justify a military confrontation with Russia.
Whilst I’m sure that many European nations would be more than pleased if the Russian threat simply ‘went away’, and there may indeed be some very favourable geopolitical ‘spoils of war’ from a post-Putin Russia, I am far from convinced that it is what they would deliberately seek. Russia are the top nuclear-armed state on the planet.
And if their rhetoric is to be believed, they’re not afraid to use them should the Russian state face an existential crisis. I think those warnings should be taken as serious, given that the Russian state is essentially headed up by extremely proud, self-absorbed far-right nationalists, who would rather be seen dead than let the Motherland die on their watch.
So is there a motive for NATO to ‘create’ the illusion of a Russian threat? Maybe, but not a good enough one when you consider the insurmountable risk they would face in the event of an all-out war.
On top of that, one can look to the social media platform X sometimes for useful and sensible political takes. Hey, I said sometimes!
Conservative MP for Welwyn Hatfield, Grant Shapps, posted to his X in recent days listing the recent hostile acts relating to Russia against European and NATO nations. Not just the apparent hostile acts, but the ones that have actually been ‘settled in court or formally attributed by a government’, according to Shapps.
Thanks, Grant. Your communication skills have certainly improved since you hung up on a live Sky News phone interview in 2024 when they told you you were predicted to lose your seat.
The list:
“March 2024, London. Warehouse holding Starlink terminals for Ukraine burnt down. Five convicted, up to 17 years. Ordered by Wagner via Telegram.
May 2024, Vilnius. IKEA store set alight. A Ukrainian, 17 at the time, jailed. He acted for Russian military and security structures.
May 2024, Warsaw. Marywilska 44 shopping centre destroyed, 1,400 units lost. Poland’s Prime Minister confirmed it was arson ordered by Russian services.
January 2025, Estonia. A supermarket and a Ukrainian restaurant torched. Two convicted. The court found the principal was tasked by the GRU.
March 2025, Cologne. GPS-tracked parcels used to map delivery routes. A Ukrainian convicted of acting as a sabotage agent; the court found a Russian state entity initiated it.
May 2025, London. Six Bulgarians jailed for a combined 50 years for surveillance run from a Great Yarmouth guesthouse. Targets: journalists, dissidents, and Ukrainian troops.
October 2025, Poland. Three Ukrainians convicted over a sabotage network spanning Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine and Russia.
November 2025, Poland. Explosion on the Warsaw-Lublin railway, a route carrying aid to Ukraine. Two men working with Russian intelligence identified. Classed as terrorism.
August 2026, Leipzig. Explosive drone found beside a Ukrainian cargo aircraft. Attributed to Russia yesterday.”
As we can see, the list is vast and growing alarmingly regularly. Whilst some on this list might seem relatively low in terms of threat level like surveillance ops, some are deeply concerning, like the detonation of a Polish railway. What if our trains in Britain were targeted? How can we say for sure that that wouldn’t happen, given Russian acts of hostility seem to show no limits? The rhetoric coming from Moscow at present is aggressively anti-British, and we should be keeping an eye over our shoulder in case.
The problem for me, however, is actually not whether or not the Russian threat is a work of NATO fiction or not – anyone with two functioning eyes and a decently functioning brain that processes what they see understands that it is not. Of course it is real. We only need to take a glance at the list of recent events. It’s already happened across the continent and our own shores, multiple times.
So clearly, Abbott’s comments are utterly obtuse and simply dangerous. But the problem for me is, she uses them to argue against increased defence spending – a hot topic across the benches of Westminster at present. But let’s separate out the argument for a moment. The fundamental flaw that Abbott commits is that she seems unable to understand that the threats Britain faces at present are multi-faceted. Russia is not the only reason we need to up our defence spending quickly.
Recent days have shown Argentinian President Javier Milei re-ignite the burning Argentinian claim for ownership over the Falklands. Whilst the Falklands are far better defended today than in 1982 since we now have a permanent British base there in RAF Mount Pleasant, and the Argentinians are in no military condition to mount an invasion, crazier things have happened before. In the bewildering event that an Argentinian invasion does occur, we would undoubtedly send further reinforcements from the British Isles in the event of a resources surprise, or in case of any British defensive difficulties. And that requires readiness and abundance. Which is more than the current 2.6% budget gives us if you speak to some military analysts.
I could go further with the threat that Iran poses us. 20 potentially lethal terror attacks on British soil were foiled in the last year. I could also go further, with the changing geopolitical and military leadership landscape in Europe now that America seems to have well and truly passed the baton onto us to defend ourselves. But those are issues that could have an entire separate article written on them. So I’ll hold off on those for now. But it is clear that Abbott, respectfully, seems to be in a state of delusion when it comes to Britain’s defence picture.
The Russian threat is not ‘NATO fiction’ because what would we gain from that? But even if we put that aside and give her the benefit of the doubt, the threats against Britain just seem to continue stacking up. And the current budget just will not cut the mustard when putting this into perspective. Is that really a scenario that we want to sleepwalk into unprepared?