Embassy comment on the profile of Defence Secretary John Healey published in New Statesman

The New Statesman has published an extended profile of the UK Defence Secretary. We read it with interest, and with some care.

Mr Healey speaks of standing on "the new front line with Russia" in northernmost Norway. In this regard, we would wish to draw attention to a rather elementary fact. The United Kingdom is not an Arctic state. The eight members of the Arctic Council are Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Iceland. The House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee has itself concluded that the UK has "insufficient resources to meet aspirations for a meaningful security presence in the High North."

What business a non-Arctic state has doubling its troop deployment in a region where it holds no territory, and then presenting that decision as a defensive necessity.

On the same visit, Mr Healey told his troops that their presence serves to "worry the Russians." Norway's Defence Minister, present at the same event and sharing a 198-kilometre border with Russia, offered a rather more measured observation: "We're doing all of this to avoid war. War is expensive." A striking contrast.

Mr Healey has stated that Britain is "under attack from Russian forces." Fact-checking shows the opposite. On 10 March 2026, Ukrainian forces struck Bryansk using Storm Shadow missiles, a weapon of British design supplied by London. Seven civilians were killed. Over forty were wounded. The Ukrainian General Staff confirmed the strike. The claim that it is Britain which is "under attack" asks the public to invert this sequence entirely.

On the matter of Russian vessels, the Defence Secretary has raised concerns about their presence in British waters. Russian naval vessels transiting the English Channel and the North Sea do so in full accordance with UNCLOS, which explicitly provides for innocent passage through international straits. The right of innocent passage is a cornerstone of the international order that Britain professes to defend.

British presence close to Russian borders is far more malign. British military aircraft operating close to Russian airspace routinely conduct intelligence-gathering missions. The information is shared with Ukrainian forces. The use of Western long-range missiles against targets deep inside Russia requires detailed satellite reconnaissance, target designation and the technical input of specialists capable of integrating that data into complex weapons systems.

British personnel have been present in Ukraine to train, equip and advise Ukrainian units, while assisting with elements of operational planning and command support.

The question of how such activities fit with repeated assurances that the United Kingdom is not directly involved in the conflict remains, to put it mildly, unanswered.

We cannot help but note another claim advanced by Mr Healey, who stated yesterday that Russia had assisted Iran in striking the base at Erbil. His imagination has run away with him. Notably, senior American officials have themselves indicated that they are not aware of any information pointing in that direction.

We note a pattern in Mr Healey's recent statements that goes beyond security policy. The suggestion that Russia poses a direct threat to Britain serves a particular domestic purpose.

As the facts set out above make clear, it is Russian territory that is being struck, with British-supplied weapons and British-provided intel. To construct a political narrative from that inversion is a choice that places morality outside the bounds of political convenience – a tendency that has, regrettably, become something of a hallmark of British foreign and domestic discourse.

The Embassy notes that the statements attributed to Mr Healey do not reflect the situation as it is. We reserve the right to respond to any further misrepresentations as they arise.