Do you remember the promise about British military involvement in Afghanistan and the assurance of “no shots being fired?” Or, before that, how there were “weapons of mass destruction” hidden in Iraq that could be despatched with just 45 minutes’ notice? Both of which turned out to be of as much use as the ‘soft-skinned’ Land Rovers and faulty radios with which our military was criminally equipped on its first deployment in the region.

And that is precisely why the grandiose way Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced a new entente cordiale has sent chills down the spine of many of our most esteemed former military commanders. Because while it is important to report troops will only be deployed as a part of ensuring peace in Ukraine, this has been made by a PM and government that has committed to no real uplift in military spending for almost a decade.

It has also continued the shameful practice of the previous administration and watched the number of what are called ‘regular soldiers’ shrink to its lowest figure since the Napoleonic Wars.

Additionally, of the 70,000 troops available, a fifth of them are “excused boots” due to being “medically not deployable.” At the same time billions has been squandered on the botched Ajax tank project which has resulted in some soldiers being invalided out of the Army.

Does that sound to you like an outfit that’s been properly resourced and readied for possible conflict? No, me neither.

Another startling fact to emerge from the bizarrely named “coalition of the willing” conference last week in Paris was the complete lack of operational detail for any British troops deployed.

For instance, as the former Deputy Supreme Commander of NATO, General Sir Richard Shurreff told me on my radio show: “We have to be ready to accept it is highly likely our troops will be fired on by the Russians in some way.” And that has been supported by bellicose statements from Moscow.

That means if they’re in a peacekeeping role like the perennially hobbled United Nations Blue Helmets, they could be denied the chance to engage and fire back!

The glaring issue here is Sir Keir is and always has been a lawyer first and a politician second and accordingly he struggles to comprehend how and why people choose to ignore international law.

Also, to return to that “coalition of the willing” absurdity, it appears few are actually willing after all. It is the British and the French who have signed up for this and while there is talk of “other partners,” in reality the likelihood currently seems remote.

After all, President Trump is busy taking over much of the Western Hemisphere and leaders of nations such as Italy and Germany were conspicuous by their absence when Starmer, Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Zelensky clasped hands like an ageing boy band act when signing the accord.

But the ultimate irony has to be this: two nations that grandstand about defending Ukraine are, in truth, unable to defend their own borders.