In 1878, the Russo-Turkish War was going badly for the declining Ottoman Empire.
The Russians were conquering one province after another and steadily advancing to the gates of Constantinople. The perennial strategic aim of the Russian Empire, gaining control of the Straits (the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, that is, not the one of Hormuz) and a permanent access to the Mediterranean.
Such objectives were at odds with Britain’s interests, which point had been emphatically made to Russia on several previous occasions, including the relatively recent Crimean War of 1853-1856. Russia had been soundly thrashed by a small Anglo-French-Sardinian expeditionary force, which outcome is rather glossed over in Russian historiography.
Russia didn’t quite learn that lesson, came back in 1877, and by February next year the Russian forces reached the outskirts of Constantinople. A quick refresher was needed, and Prime Minister Disraeli was happy to provide one.
He ordered a Royal Navy squadron into the Dardanelles and Sea of Marmara, which spelled an instant end to Russia’s aspirations. The message was loud and clear, and it was eminently believable for being frighteningly evocative.
In that undertaking, HMG enjoyed enthusiastic public support. In pubs all over the country, thousands of thirsty Britons were belting out a patriotic song written by Hunt and first sung by MacDermott:
We don’t want to fight but by jingo if we do….
We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, and got the money too!
We’ve fought the Bear before… and while we’re Britons true!
The Russians shall not have Constantinople…
The song not only enriched the English lexicon by adding the word ‘jingoism’, but, more important, it also captured the public sentiment and gave an accurate statement of Britain’s standing in the world.
The Royal Navy could then project Britain’s power all the way to the Straits, 2,220 miles from our shores. However, as if to prove that 148 years is a long time in geopolitics, today it can’t even patrol the Channel, practically our internal waterway.
We now have no ships, no men and no money – or rather whatever money we do have we’d rather spend on millions of Britons pulling a sickie, not on the defence of the realm.
Now, I realise that Britain no longer is, nor can possibly aspire to be, the mighty global empire she was in 1878. However, having lost the empire, Britain didn’t have to throw self-respect the same way into the bargain.
We are no longer “Britons true”, which is why the same Bear mentioned in the MacDermott song is openly cocking a snook at an impotent Britain unable even to guard the Channel. First, the Russians sent warships to escort their sanctions-busting ‘ghost fleet’ through.
And last week they sent three submarines to sabotage our underwater cables. While that was going on, Britain’s solitary destroyer, HMS Dragon, was dividing its time between repair docks around the Mediterranean and lying at anchor without, God forbid, upsetting the Iranians and their friends.
Apart from that destroyer, the almighty Royal Navy that once enabled Britannia to rule the waves can boast one submarine and two frigates ready for action. No wonder Putin is sneering at us.
Senior defence sources admitted that the Royal Navy can’t really meet “operational commitments”. Translated into mufti, this means Britain has no navy to speak of. Pathetic doesn’t begin to describe it.
Meanwhile, our government talks tough while carrying no stick at all. Last month, Starmer announced that, if Russia continued to sail her tankers through the Channel, the Royal Navy would board and seize them.
A worthy intention, this, but it turns out that, in order to act on it, the UK would need the help of the French navy to give our marines a ride to those offensive tankers. Any patriotic Briton, even a co-opted one like me, has to wonder who won the Battle of Trafalgar.
I can’t find a simile to describe the depth of this humiliation. It’s like French champagne houses seeking the help of British winemakers to get the grape mix right… No, that’s too weak.
And the worst part of it is that the French actually spend less on defence than we do. That little datum takes the story beyond merely matters martial and into the area of rife corruption besetting British public administration.
By corruption I don’t mean the odd backhander greasing a palm or two, but something worse: cavalier negligence and disregard of fundamental duties. That’s the only explanation of why Britain only has 75 warships while France has 120, 25 of them frigates and destroyers capable of carrying helicopters.
It’s not just the navy either. The French armed forces have 240,000 active personnel, while we have 74,000. One can’t help wondering how the French make their defence budget go so much further. It’s that corruption again, which concept is in Britain conveniently reduced only to petty things like bribery and purloining. If only.
Our government should remind itself of what it’s for. Appearances to the contrary, the purpose of government isn’t increasing its own power, corrupting the populace with handouts and enforcing a subversive ethic at variance with our whole civilisation.
Its first, second, third and tenth purpose is protecting the people and their freedom from enemies without and criminals within. It’s only after that purpose has been achieved that, way down on the list, other duties come in – and no, systematically turning a nation of shopkeepers into a nation of shoplifters isn’t one of them.
Forget 1878. Even in 1982, Britain was able to send a task force of 127 ships to the South Atlantic to protect the sovereignty of the Falklands, 8,000 miles away. Today we can’t even protect the sovereignty of our own seashore, a national humiliation for which we only have ourselves to blame.
For it’s British voters who every few years go to the poll booths like lambs going to the slaughter, national slaughter that is. They vote in one criminally negligent government after another, selling their birthright for a pot of ideological message – and I don’t just mean Labour administrations.
I still remember David Cameron, Tory PM in 2010-2016, announcing yet another swingeing cut to our armed forces. Britain didn’t really need a large army and navy, he explained in his usual inane manner. The nature of modern warfare was such that those traditional entities had become obsolete.
What had become obsolete is Messrs Blair, Cameron, Sunak, Starmer and other corrupt and corrupting spivocrats we call leaders. I do hope Britons realise this and do something about it before it’s not the Royal Navy boarding Russian ships, but the latter landing invasion forces in Kent.
P.S. A propos of nothing, this reminds me of the old story about a society lady returning to London after a voyage around the world. When asked what she thought of the Dardanelles, she replied: “Loved him, hated her.”
P.P.S. Happy Easter to all my Orthodox readers.
Hunt’s ditty has gotten quite a bit of play here. This is the third reference in the past 18 months and fourth since March 2022. Not that I’m counting, but it is good to get confirmation when I think, “I’ve read that recently.”
A quick online search shows His Majesty has six active destroyers, but perhaps they are not all operational. And I hope things have improved since 2021, when there were only enough planes for one of his two aircraft carriers. If you’re to meet the demands of the Naval Defence Act of 1889, you’re going to have to come up with another 130 destroyers (US 78 and China 58) and 12 more aircraft carriers. Obviously, that is no longer practical and perhaps it is unnecessary, as so many of the would-be invaders are already resident. The idea that British shipping needs protection around the world is seen as old-fashioned and probably imperialistic, racist, and any number of phobics.
I detect implicit — and richly deserved — criticism. Unfortunately, when one writes over 300 articles a year for 15 years, one will inevitably repeat oneself. But you are right: I should at least check that repetitions don’t come close together.
The times-two doctrine of the British Empire went the way of all flesh even before the end of the Empire. But we should still be able to defend our seashore without help from the French, our ‘oldest historical enemy’. This requirement seems to escape our Marxist government.
No, no, no. No criticism implied. The patterns of our governments’ follies repeat, so why shouldn’t your condemnations?