The Same Starmer who is increasing military funding, as well as support for Ukraine?

The same Starmer who is signing defence pacts with allies like the Nordic countries, Germany, and others?

The same Starmer who appears keen to expand various naval projects, as well as the GCAP programme, to like-minded allies such as Canada and Australia?

The Same Starmer who has increased resources towards the aforementioned GCAP (UK, Italy, and Japan's joint 6th gen jet fighter project, which is significantly further ahead than the US's and France/Germany/Spain's respective 6th gen fighter projects)?

The same Starmer who's overseen the Royal Navy successfully preventing Houthi terror groups attacking and boarding civilian cargo ships bound for Europe?

The same Starmer who, after Iran threatened to attack UK bases, warned them not to, and they immediately backed down, while simultaneously keeping us out of the conflict (unlike the US).

Starmer and his team actually seems pretty damn competent on defence so far.

This is just dumb posturing from a deranged Republican. And not just any Republican, the US embassador to Israel, a country who has became increasingly hostile to Starmer over the past year, because he wants them to stop committing war crimes.

Honestly, what a discardable opinion.

That’s right up there with some of the most stupidest things I’ve ever heard.

Maybe pick somebody from the same time period.

And The Union would've lost the American Civil War if Trump was president. Your point is?

I don't like Starmer very much, but that's a utterly stupid and incredibly ignorant thing to say. Especially from the US ambassador.

The UK was under attack by a hostile force who were literally bombing the country. A military response was inevitable, the current prime minister would have had very little effect on that. One way or the other there was going to be a war, victory for that war was largely down to experience military commanders and not the prime minister. I'm fairly sure that if we reran history and kept everything else the same except had Starmer as prime minister we would have still won the war.

In reality we might have done slightly better because Churchill was incredibly uncompromising and inflexible. A better relationship with Eisenhower might have actually helped slightly. Although it probably would have not made a huge difference.

Considering the direction the US is headed.

Overtly repeating many of the ideas and actions of the 1930 fascist government.

Not really sure leaders of such governments should be considered to have much value in such ideas.

What kind of argument is that? Winston Churchill was a genocidal Tory who was dragged kicking and screaming away from starting another war once the war was over

We dont even concretely know who our friends or our enemies are to start with pointless wartime rhetoric

Why is the BBC giving this the time of day

" it may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."

• Henry Kissinger

It's a war crime as well then.