Sir Keir Starmer at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday (Image: Getty)
Reform UK has accused Sir Keir Starmer of “lying” after the embattled Prime Minister suggested Reform would be “soft” on Russia. Sir Keir made the comments during a speech at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, as he called for greater European collaboration on defence, and said Britain and its continental allies need to “spend more, deliver more and coordinate more”.
It came at the end of a torrid few days for Sir Keir, who has faced calls from some within his own party to resign over his appointment of Lord Mandelson as UK ambassador to Washington. The Prime Minister is also facing profound doubts over his leadership more generally, with Labour MPs nervously watching polling consistently showing low approval ratings for Sir Keir, strong support for Nigel Farage‘s Right-wing Reform party, as well as recent surges in support for the Green Party on the left. While the Prime Minister didn’t mention either party by name today, he appeared to make a dig at them in his remarks in Germany, questioning their commitment to European security.
Get the latest news from around the world and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Reform UK’s deputy leader Richard Tice accused the PM of being ‘unfit to govern’. (Image: Getty)
Sir Keir said the “peddlers of easy answers are ready on the extremes of left and right and they will offer their solutions instead”.
“It’s striking that the different ends of the spectrum share so much,” he added. “Soft on Russia, weak on Nato, if not outright opposed, and determined to sacrifice the relationships we need on the altar of their ideology.
“The future they offer is one of division and then capitulation,” he added.
Reform deputy leader Richard Tice furiously rejected the implication, telling Express.co.uk: “Starmer is lying to save his skin. The British people see him for what he is: totally unfit to govern.”
Sir Keir’s remarks in Munich were trailed ahead of the speech, and a Reform spokesperson said the party “believes our priority should be rebuilding our armed forces, properly funding defence to at least 3.5 per cent of GDP, standing up to China and Russia and strengthening our bilateral relationships”.
A Green Party source told The Times: “This is a caretaker prime minister running scared, losing what’s left of his authority by going abroad to a summit on our future security and making cheap smears against the Green Party”.
The Greens said he was making the comments “because he knows Labour have blown it in Gorton & Denton,” where there is an upcoming by-election that could pile further pressure on Sir Keir if his party is defeated there.
Figures within Reform, including party leader Nigel Farage, have previously faced accusations of not being strong enough on the Kremlin regime, something Mr Farage has repeatedly denied. Nathan Gill, the ex-leader of Reform UK in Wales was sentenced to 10-and-a-half years in prison in November last year after admitting taking bribes for pro-Russia interviews and speeches.
The party was also accused by critics of “pandering to Moscow” after none of its MPs turned up to a Parliamentary debate on Russian interference in British politics this week, The Byline Times reported.
Meanwhile, Green Party leader Zack Polanski has previously called for the UK to leave NATO, arguing that Britain needs to end its dependence on American military might.
A Labour Party spokesperson said: “Nigel Farage has said Putin is the world leader he admires most and his former Leader in Wales was jailed last year for taking pro-Russian bribes. As recently as yesterday Farage was spouting Russian talking points on Ukraine.
“Reform can try and run from their record all they like, the truth is Farage and his top team are Putin’s puppets and are incapable of standing up for Britain.”
Sir Keir sacked Lord Mandelson from the UK’s most coveted diplomatic post in September after emails revealed the extent of the former Cabinet minister’s close ties with the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was jailed for soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2008 and died in federal custody in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide.
Lord Mandelson has since resigned from the Labour Party and the House of Lords. The Labour veteran was previously known to have been a friend of Epstein before his appointment as ambassador. But Sir Keir is under renewed pressure to reveal how the vetting process cleared him for the role after subsequent emails allegedly showed Lord Mandelson voicing support for Epstein following his 2008 conviction, and casting doubt on his guilt.
The emails were released by the US Department of Justice in its latest enormous tranche of documents related to investigations into Epstein. Appearing in the files does not indicate any wrongdoing.
Sir Keir apologised for the appointment and claimed Lord Mandelson “lied repeatedly” about the extent of his relationship with Epstein.
Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Police have launched a criminal investigation into Lord Mandelson over allegations of misconduct in public office following claims that he leaked confidential and market-sensitive government information to Epstein in 2009, during his time as business secretary under then PM Gordon Brown.
The BBC understands that Lord Mandelson’s position is that he has not acted criminally and was not motivated by financial gain.
He has also always denied knowing anything about Epstein’s illegal child abuse and denies any wrongdoing. In a previous statement, his representatives said: “Lord Mandelson regrets, and will regret until his dying day, that he believed Epstein’s lies about his criminality.
“Lord Mandelson did not discover the truth about Epstein until after his death in 2019. He is profoundly sorry that powerless and vulnerable women and girls were not given the protection they deserved.”
Reform Roasts ‘Liar’ Starmer After PM Suggests Party Would Be ‘Soft’ on Russia
A fierce political clash has erupted between Reform UK and Keir Starmer after the Prime Minister accused Nigel Farage’s party of being “soft on Russia” and “weak on NATO”.
The extraordinary exchange placed Britain’s approach to Russia, Ukraine and European security at the centre of an increasingly bitter political argument.
Starmer made the remarks during a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2026, where he warned that political forces on both the left and right were offering what he described as “easy answers” on national security. He specifically accused Reform UK and the Greens of being soft on Russia and weak on NATO.
Reform responded by strongly rejecting the accusation. A party spokesperson said Starmer was a weak Prime Minister and argued that Reform wanted to rebuild Britain’s armed forces, increase defence spending and take a tougher approach towards Russia and China.
The dispute highlights a much broader disagreement over Britain’s defence priorities and the future of its relationship with European allies.
Starmer’s Warning
Starmer’s intervention came at a sensitive moment for European security.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has transformed defence policy across Europe, with NATO members reassessing military spending and their ability to respond to potential threats.
Speaking at Munich, Starmer argued that Britain needed strong international partnerships and a credible defence capability.
His criticism of Reform was part of a wider warning aimed at political movements that he believes could weaken Britain’s commitment to NATO.
Starmer said that the political extremes offered a future of division and capitulation, while insisting that his government would not allow that to happen.
The remarks were particularly provocative because Reform has increasingly sought to position itself as a party committed to rebuilding Britain’s military capabilities.
Reform’s Immediate Response
Reform rejected Starmer’s description of the party’s position.
A spokesperson argued that the Prime Minister was himself failing to provide sufficient funding for defence and claimed that Reform would make rebuilding Britain’s armed forces a priority.
The party said it supported defence spending of at least 3.5% of GDP and wanted Britain to take a stronger position towards both Russia and China.
Zia Yusuf, then Reform’s head of policy, also rejected the suggestion that Farage was sympathetic towards Vladimir Putin.
Yusuf pointed to Farage’s statement that he would support shooting down Russian aircraft if they entered NATO airspace, arguing that this demonstrated that Reform was not “soft” on Russia.
The disagreement therefore centres partly on what constitutes a sufficiently strong response to Russia.
Farage’s Position on Ukraine
The controversy is complicated by Farage’s long-standing argument about the origins of the Ukraine war.
Farage has repeatedly argued that Western expansion of NATO and the European Union contributed to tensions with Russia.
In an interview reported by The Guardian, he maintained that he had been correct to say the West had “provoked” Russia by moving NATO and the EU eastwards. He also criticised the way Ukraine’s political relationship with the West developed after 2014.
Those comments have been repeatedly cited by opponents who argue that Farage’s analysis places too much responsibility on Western governments.
Farage, however, has rejected the idea that explaining the background to Russia’s invasion amounts to supporting Moscow.
That distinction is at the heart of the political dispute.
Understanding the causes of a conflict and approving of a government’s military actions are not necessarily the same thing.
Reform’s NATO Position
Another important part of the debate concerns NATO.
Reform’s critics have questioned whether the party’s approach to Russia is compatible with a strong commitment to the alliance.
Reform argues that the opposite is true.
The party has called for significantly increased defence spending and stronger armed forces, while Farage has said that Britain should remain capable of responding to Russian military activity.
Yusuf specifically highlighted Farage’s position on Russian aircraft entering NATO airspace.
This creates an important distinction between two separate questions.
The first is whether Britain should remain committed to NATO.
The second is how Britain should respond to Russia and how much money should be spent on defence.
A political party can support NATO while disagreeing with the government’s timetable or preferred method of increasing defence spending.
Labour’s Counterargument
Labour’s argument is that military strength depends on alliances as well as spending.
Starmer has emphasised Britain’s relationships with European countries and NATO allies as essential components of national security.
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper subsequently reinforced the attack on Reform, accusing the party of undermining Britain’s commitment to NATO and failing to take the Russian threat seriously.
Cooper pointed to controversies surrounding former Reform politician Nathan Gill, who was convicted of taking bribes from a suspected Russian asset.
That case has been used by Labour as part of a broader argument about Russian influence.
However, an individual’s conviction does not by itself establish that the entire Reform UK organisation supports Russian interests.
Reform has rejected suggestions that the party is pro-Russian.
The Nathan Gill Controversy
Nathan Gill’s case has nevertheless become politically significant.
Gill, a former Member of the European Parliament associated with Farage’s political movement, was convicted of accepting bribes connected to Russian interests.
Labour politicians have cited the case when questioning Reform’s approach to Russia.
Reform has argued that the actions of an individual cannot fairly be used to characterise the position of the entire party.
The disagreement illustrates one of the difficulties of political debate over national security.
Questions about foreign influence require evidence concerning specific individuals, organisations and activities rather than broad assumptions about an entire political movement.
Defence Spending
The argument over defence spending is another major dividing line.
Reform says Britain should spend at least 3.5% of GDP on defence.
Starmer’s government has also committed to increasing defence spending, but its timetable and wider fiscal priorities have been criticised by Reform and other political opponents.
The debate is therefore not simply about whether Britain should spend more.
It is about how much should be spent, how quickly spending should increase, which capabilities should receive priority and how the additional expenditure should be financed.
Those decisions have major implications for the armed forces and for government finances.
Why Russia Has Become Such a Political Flashpoint
Russia has become one of the most contentious foreign-policy subjects in British politics because the war in Ukraine has changed the security environment across Europe.
For Labour, Russia represents a major strategic threat requiring stronger NATO cooperation and increased defence investment.
For Reform, the argument is more complicated.
Farage has strongly criticised Vladimir Putin’s invasion while also arguing that Western policy contributed to the circumstances that preceded the war.
His critics argue that such analysis risks obscuring Russia’s responsibility for launching the invasion.
Reform supporters argue that understanding the historical and geopolitical context is essential to developing a realistic foreign policy.
The disagreement is therefore partly about policy and partly about how the conflict itself should be interpreted.
The Political Stakes for Starmer
Starmer’s attack on Reform was also a political intervention.
By accusing Reform of being soft on Russia, the Prime Minister was seeking to frame national security as an area in which Labour believes it has a stronger position.
That strategy carries its own risks.
If Reform can demonstrate credible commitments to defence spending and NATO, it can argue that Labour’s accusation does not accurately describe its programme.
This explains why Reform responded so aggressively.
The party has little incentive to allow the claim that it is “soft on Russia” to become an accepted description of its foreign-policy position.
The Political Stakes for Farage
For Farage, the issue presents a different challenge.
His criticism of NATO and EU expansion before Russia’s invasion remains one of the most controversial elements of his foreign-policy record.
He has defended those comments rather than withdrawing them.
At the same time, Reform wants to present itself as a party committed to national defence.
That requires explaining how criticism of past Western policy fits alongside support for stronger British armed forces and NATO.
The distinction between preventing future conflict and responding to aggression is likely to remain central to Farage’s argument.
A Debate About Britain’s Future Role
The confrontation ultimately raises a larger question about Britain’s role in European security.
Should Britain place greater emphasis on cooperation with European allies?
How much should Britain spend on defence?
Should Britain provide long-term military support for Ukraine?
How should Britain respond to Russian military activity?
And how should the country balance its European commitments with its relationships with the United States and other global powers?
These are difficult questions with significant financial and strategic consequences.
The disagreement between Starmer and Farage demonstrates that there is no simple consensus about the answers.
Conclusion
Starmer’s accusation that Reform is “soft on Russia” has produced one of the sharpest foreign-policy confrontations between Labour and Farage’s party.
The Prime Minister has argued that Britain needs stronger alliances and a robust NATO commitment, while Reform has rejected the claim that it is weak on Russia and says it would significantly increase defence spending.
Farage’s past comments about NATO and Western policy towards Russia remain central to the controversy. He has argued that NATO and EU expansion contributed to the tensions that preceded Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while also maintaining that Britain should be prepared to defend NATO airspace.
The dispute therefore cannot be reduced to a simple argument over whether either side is “soft” or “tough”.
The substantive questions are more complicated: how Britain should deter Russia, how much it should spend on defence, what role NATO should play, how strongly it should support Ukraine and how closely it should cooperate with European allies.
Those questions will remain important as Britain reassesses its defence strategy and its place in a changing European security environment.