Britain is in a state of crisis. When will its politicians realise it? When will its people?
The abuse directed against the British Armed Forces by Donald Trump is all the evidence we need that the transatlantic relationship is crumbling.
Trump started a foolish war he doesn't know how to finish. He rails against Britain and other allies. He calls Nato a 'paper tiger' and threatens to withdraw the United States from the organisation.
The American President resembles a petulant child. He has no strategic sense and, because of that, changes his mind daily. Having started a war without consulting Nato allies, he suggests it should be left to those allies to clear the Strait of Hormuz. This is not far short of insanity.
And yet in his delusional raging there is a core of truth. Britain and the West have depended on America for so long that they are unable to defend themselves against Russia or any other prospective foe.
He asserts this in such abusive terms that British patriots are bound to be riled. Yesterday Trump told the Telegraph: 'You don't even have a navy. You're too old and had aircraft carriers that didn't work.'
What a nerve, I thought. How foully rude to talk in such a way about the country that since the end of the Second World War has been America's closest and most effective ally, and shed much blood in Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan.
But let's set aside our amour propre. We don't have much of a navy - witness the fact that four of our six destroyers (itself a tragically depleted number) at the start of the conflict in Iran were out of service and under repair.
The First Sea Lord conceded on Tuesday that the Royal Navy is not ready for war. This is a politer way of saying what Trump said. What a disgraceful admission, which should make a generation of politicians of all parties hang their heads in shame.
And senior servicemen, too, who have colluded with governments in the destruction of our Armed Forces - for the Army and RAF are in no better shape - while grumbling in private about cuts. Where was the general or admiral or air chief marshal brave enough to resign in protest?
So here we are. Abandoned and vilified by a tempestuous and ignorant President - and governed by a Prime Minister and a party incapable of understanding how weak we have become, or of knowing what we should do about it.
Thomas Jefferson, US founding father and third President of the Republic, famously said that 'the government you elect is the government you deserve'. That is true of Americans and Trump, and it's true of Britons and Sir Keir Starmer.
Starmer was created for a time of peace. He knows nothing of war. He is soft, well-meaning and weak. He says he realises the world is a more dangerous place, and that we must rearm, but does practically nothing about it. He won't stand up to the Chancellor.
Rachel Reeves opposes spending more on defence. She cheerfully hands welfare claimants an increase of 6.2 per cent - twice the rate of inflation - from this month. She does nothing about the burgeoning welfare budget, which consumes more than six times what we spend on defence.
Starmer isn't the worst offender in starving the Armed Forces of adequate funds. The blame lies principally with the Tories between 2010 and 2024, and in particular with David Cameron, who cut defence spending by 8 per cent in 2010; a blow from which our military has never recovered.
Nor has Starmer behaved notably foolishly since Trump started bombing Iran five weeks ago. You can't join forces with a chronically unreliable President who doesn't know what he wants to achieve.
The worst that can be said of the Prime Minister is that at the beginning of the war he foolishly denied the Americans use of British bases after his friend, Attorney General Lord Hermer, filled his head with a lot of misplaced concerns about international law.
Speaking of which, the next time I hear a politician or BBC journalist talking reverently about the 'rules-based international order', I won't be responsible for my actions. There is no such order because Russia, China, Belarus, Iran, North Korea and possibly Trump's America don't observe it.
I recognise that Starmer's position is tricky, of course. All that cringe-making sucking up to Trump has got him nowhere. In fact, the opposite. Being a bully, Trump especially likes to kick those who advertise their weakness and proclaim their sycophancy.
That said, Starmer's immediate response to his abandonment is depressing. Yesterday, he revealed that he intends to cosy up to the EU with 'closer economic co-operation and closer security co-operation'. A summit will be held soon to discuss a 'more ambitious' relationship.
The European Union is a trade body. It is not a defence organisation, and hasn't needed to be because of Nato. That coalition of countries, led by America and with Britain usually playing the next most important role, has kept the peace in Europe for nearly eight decades.
With the US less committed to European defence - and conceivably preparing to withdraw altogether - it will now fall to European countries to make up the difference.
But the EU as an entity isn't capable of replacing Nato. Nor, from Britain's point of view, would it be desirable since Brussels would demand that the British government eat huge amounts of humble pie even to get a place on a put-up chair at the end of the table.
Some different defence relationship must be developed, probably under the auspices of what remains of Nato, whereby Britain finds determined and trustworthy European allies.
Germany, Poland and the Nordic countries are the most obvious candidates. They are already rearming. Canada, which is a member of Nato, and Australia, which isn’t, are clearly close allies.
France, if it were led by a less chauvinist president than Emmanuel Macron, is also a likely partner; although despite the usual Gallic muscle-flexing it spends even less on defence than Britain.
Whatever emerges from this crisis, there is only one way to ensure that Britain is respected by its European allies and by whatever president comes after Trump. That is to rearm on a scale that Starmer, Reeves and the Labour Party have not dreamt of.
This will not only require much higher spending—which in our current financial predicament must largely come from welfare since economic growth remains a figment of Rachel Reeves' imagination—and will continue to do so unless taxation is eased.
There will also have to be a revolution in which ministers, senior civil servants, military top brass and defence suppliers dramatically improve their performance.
Is it likely that Keir Starmer—soft and ignorant of the ways of war; obsessed with a ‘rules-based order’ that doesn’t exist—could lead such a revolution?
Of course not. We need a Churchill or a Thatcher. But for as long as Labour remains in power, who is a better bet than Starmer? Angela Rayner? Andy Burnham? I don’t think so.
Sir Keir Starmer is what we’ve got. Give up licking Trump’s boots. Don’t run into the chilly embrace of the EU. There’s only one way to stop being an irrelevant laughing stock.