Sat, 18th July Cardiff 24°
Nation.Cymru wordmark
Advertisement

Opinion

Manifest Destiny

By Mark Mansfield
Dua Lipa performing on stage during the Glastonbury Festival last summer. Photo Yui Mok/PA Wire

Ben Wildsmith

The Cambridge Dictionary’s word of the year is ‘manifest’. Clarifying that this doesn’t refer to the list of passengers on a ship, the dictionary’s publishing manager, Wendalyn Nichols, specified the word’s usage by the ‘wellness community’.

For them, it is a verb meaning ‘to imagine achieving something you want, in the belief that doing so will make it more likely to happen.’

Dr Sander van der Linden, professor of social psychology at Cambridge University, told Sky News that, ‘the idea of making something happen by "manifesting" it had no scientific validity.’

He said it was ‘what psychologists call "magical thinking" or the "general illusion that specific mental rituals can change the world around us.’

[mid-content-banner]

Footling concerns

The singer, Dua Lipa, however used the term on the Pyramid Stage at Glastonbury, so the wellness community can safely dismiss Dr van der Linden’s footling concerns about the institutional endorsement of wishful thinking. Who does he think he is?

Certainly, the UK government seems to have its thumb on the pulse as regards the rejection of empiricism in favour of superstition.

Rachel Reeves’ budget, which you’ll recall was supposed to encourage growth whilst keeping a lid on inflation, has seemingly had the opposite effect. With inflation creeping up and predicted growth estimated down, we are left with only Reeves’ stated ambition for the economy as evidence for its recovery.

‘Sim sallabim, sim, sim sallabim’ the Chancellor replied when asked about these figures. ‘So mete it be…’

But frankly, we all know the UK economy is beyond magical intervention. We’re so used to its inexorable decline that anything else would be beyond our comprehension

The rituals performed over its corpse by successive chancellors have more in common with a night of mediumship offered by your soon-to-close local pub than actual governance.

‘The spirit’s very strong tonight, ladies and gentlemen. Does anyone know a gentleman who has passed by the name of Milton? He’s very keen to get through… I’m getting the word…"monetarism". What’s that, Milton? He says don’t listen to John Maynard Keynes, he’s very clear about that…’

[taboola-banner]

Ukraine

Meanwhile, on the international front, Keir Starmer says that we will ‘double down’ on the UK’s military commitment to Ukraine. If the dilapidated shambles of British town centres are a visual expression of the irresponsibility of magical thinking, then the casualty figures in Ukraine are a measure of its wickedness.

There is no possible route to military victory for Ukraine and no amount of ‘standing up to bullies’ pep talks are going to change that reality. At the heart of all western delusions of the past decades is the belief that the allies won WWII because their cause was morally just. That confusion of causation and correlation has infused every recklessly bellicose decision since 1945.

Empty posturing

Now, with Ukraine facing abandonment from Trump’s America, and the eastern front all but lost, Keir Starmer’s empty posturing risks not only the lives of Ukrainian servicemen but the safety of the UK.

As Joe Biden’s presidency ends in political ignominy, his decision to permit the use of long- range missiles inside Russia comes safe in the knowledge that the incoming administration can distance the USA from it in short order.

The UK’s position which, astonishingly, has been significantly more aggressive than Biden’s, will cling to Starmer’s government long after Russian-American relations have moved on.

Labour’s election victory was grounded in the belief that the party represented a return to principled pragmatism after years of Tory irresponsibility. With no economic upturn in sight, the government has left itself strategically exposed over Ukraine and ethically compromised over Israel. It is too cautious to turn back towards Europe and sent party operatives to campaign against Trump.

Perhaps, if we all join hands, we could manifest some common sense.

For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.

Get more trusted Welsh news

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News to see more of our journalism.

Choose Nation.Cymru as a preferred source in Google News

10 comments

Padi Phillips

What delusions are you referring to when it comes to victory over Nazi Germany in WW2? There is no delusion: the Allies won simply because of sheer industrial production of mass produced weapons that were just good enough and the economies of three major combatants that mobilised quickly to a war footing where Nazi Germany did not. Whatever else of dubious value was going on behind the scenes in terms of what became the post war situation the defeat of Nazism was a positive outcome, if even the only one. In terms of the war in Ukraine, of the 'Special Military Operation' you increasingly seem to want to term it, is still winnable, according to several people with experience in these things, including Lt Gen Ben Hodges who has consistently argued that Ukraine is still capable of winning should it receive the support and supplies it needs and the setting of the strategic outcome of victory rather than the fuzzy and incoherent 'for as long as it takes' whatever 'it' might be. Despite appearances of sustained support, the help that Ukraine has received so far has been grudging and slow in arriving. Despite the huge sums pledged, only a fraction of that support has arrived in Ukraine, and usually too late to have any real positive effect. Had support for Ukraine been total and unstinting right from the word go when it became clear that the country was going to make a stand this war would by now be well in the past, and though it wouldn't have been over in three days, it would more than likely seen a Ukrainian victory by the end of 2022 with Russia forced to retreat and Putin dethroned. However, even here you do have a point about wishful thinking, but that's more to do with the West's wishful thinking that Putin will be satisfied by the sacrifice of Ukraine, for that is what you are basically arguing. Any kind of peace that does not see Ukrainian sovereignty restored to 1991 boundaries will not result in peace for long. We should believe Putin when he says he wants to rebuild the Soviet Union. He's a clear and present danger, but sadly one which only those countries formerly part of the Soviet empire take really seriously. plus Finland and Sweden, and to a slightly lesser extent, Norway and Denmark. Britain's problems are nothing to do with the half-hearted support thus far shown to Ukraine, and more to do with the neo-liberalism of he past half century and the utterly craven approach of this current Labour government who fool no one and who are with every mis-step inadvertantly promoting the rise of Reform, no doubt ably aided and abetted by Putin's troll social media troll factories. Labour could still save the day, but that would require the implementation of some serious policies reclaimed from the Corbyn days involving the tapping of a thus far untapped source of finance: substantial taxes on the rich and the global corporations. Indeed, it's increasingly becoming clear to even the most myopic citizens that the only way that Starmer & Co can achieve their principal aims is through taxing those very promising sources of finances - there's simply nothing left to steal from the poorest. Ultimately the UK will have to return to the EU fold in one form or abother, as even the best deal with the USA would only result in a very small increase in trade but also cancel out any hope of returning in any serious sense to trade with the EU as the price of any deal with the USA will involve reduced standards for products that the EU would avoid as much as it did British beef in the days of rampant BSE.

Reply
Bob

A Russian retreat and Putin dethroned doesn't end it. Whoever replaces him will still have the same problem with Nato-on-the-doorstep and may take a more aggressive stance. What's not clear is how annexing territory from Ukraine, or even annexing Ukraine, would solve this concern either. There seems to be only two ways to end it. One is to create a buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine that neither control. The other is for Russia to join the EU and Nato.

Reply
Padi Phillips

I'm far from convinced that anyone replacing Putin would have the same problem with NATO. In any case, it's likely that a Russian defeat would lead to the break up of the Russian Federation, and certainly create a void that the Russian pro-democracy movement could exploit. NATO is only really a problem for Putin because it stands in the way of his expansionism

Reply
Richard Jenkins

Maybe we should join hands across Cymru to get an actual say? With just 32 Welsh MPs lost in the crowd of 543 English MPs, it’s clear it doesn’t matter what we think or what argument you so eloquently write! Urinating towards the direction of the wind comes to mind. Not just Ukraine but the genocide in Palestine comes to mind! The Senedd has condemned the genocide but at the end of the day, we do what England wants . Sometimes, we are fortunate & that actually coincides with what we want! Do those rare occasions make up for the standard failure to steer our destiny? If England were to follow Trumps suit and turn into a fascist nation, as it nearly has on a number of occasions, what can we do about that? Zero! Dim byd! Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Reply
Another Richard

You really wouldn’t know from Ben’s article that Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine, would you? But it is, and Russia’s aspirations will not be satisfied if its imperialistic Ukrainian venture pays off. The long-term safety of the UK will most certainly not be assured in that case. Where will Russia look next? Moldova, very probably. The Baltic states, perhaps. Poland? Finland? Well Russian aggression is already visible there. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/05/russian-disruption-europe-points-patterns-future-aggression Indeed Russian aggression has already been visible in the UK for many years, as far back as the 2006 poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in London. Ben may prefer to overlook Russia’s long-term hostility to the democratic and humanitarian values of the West but the rest of us would be very unwise to do so.

Reply
Johnny Gamble

What has happened since 1991 when George Bush Senior said not one inch further after the reunification of Germany. Compared to NATO members how many military bases does Russia have outside it's own Country.

Reply
Another Richard

I take it you are referring to Bush's "Chicken Kiev" speech delivered in that city on 1 August 1991. The Soviet Union collapsed less than three weeks later which changed the picture somewhat, and 15 independent countries emerged from the rubble. Several of them, and also all members of the former Warsaw Pact that had not been part of the Soviet Union, decided that their security needs would be best met by joining NATO, which they did entirely voluntarily.

Reply
Mab Meirion

Good question, could Obama have 'resolved' Syria before the handover to Putin, and, as you say, a base on the Med. Certainly a move worthy of a cry of check!

Reply
Mawkernewek

"democratic and humanitarian values of the West" - you remember the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

Reply
Mab Meirion

Wargaming rising in popularity from the virtual to the real...! A bit of a loss leader, these new missiles... Bye bye H.M.S Albion and H.M.S. Bulwark...

Reply

Leave a reply

Replying to Johnny Gamble Cancel

What has happened since 1991 when George Bush Senior said not one inch further after the reunification of Germany. Compared to NATO members how many military bases does Russia have outside it's own Country.

Comments are reviewed before they appear.