[Opening theme: Regal brass ensemble, sounding suspiciously like a national anthem being played ironically]
Host (Mr. Lim Boon Seng):
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the inaugural episode of It's What You Think, where we help you make sense of the news—mostly by insulting everyone involved, politely.
Tonight, we dive into the global mess with the biggest budget and the worst timing: the Russia-Ukraine war. A brutal conflict that has captured the world's attention, drained NATO's warehouses, and somehow—somehow—managed to make the British look important again.
Yes. Important. Like a retired empire in a tuxedo showing up at someone else's wedding and reminding everyone: "By the way, I invented marriage."
Let us be clear:
This is not Russia's war.
This is not Ukraine's war.
This is Britain's finest proxy war since it told Australians Gallipoli would be a "quick holiday".
Throughout history, the British Empire has adhered to a proud and noble foreign policy tradition known as: "Let's you and him fight."
1850s? The Crimean War.
1914? A world war over a cousin's assassination.
1939? "We shall fight on the beaches... but you French go first."
1982? They fought Argentina over sheep and sheep-related property.
So when Ukraine was invaded, Britain's first instinct wasn't fear or compassion.
It was opportunity.
A chance to revive the glory days—without sending British troops, of course.
No no. That would require actual sacrifice. Instead, we offer strong words, weapons, and War Bond Twitter threads.
Let's take a moment to appreciate Britain's true wartime genius: other people's blood.
Churchill once said: "We shall never surrender."
What he meant was: "As long as we can find a brave Eastern European willing to do it for us."
Today, Britain sends arms, advisors, and newspaper columns—but not soldiers.
Instead, Ukrainians are hailed as heroes, applauded in Parliament, awarded medals—and left to bleed with British-made munitions.
And when Ukraine needs reconstruction?
Guess who's already hosting business expos titled "Rebuilding Ukraine: Sponsored by BAE Systems and Greggs"?
Britain's mastery lies not in its military power, but in rhetorical supremacy.
They tell Russia they're evil.
They tell Ukraine they're brave.
They tell the world they're "leading from the front," while physically remaining somewhere near Dover.
You see, Britain is winning in the same way your office boss takes credit for the intern's 80-hour report.
They show up for the victory photo, issue commemorative postage stamps, and quietly invoice the Americans for airlift logistics.
Let's not forget the colonial handbook:
Find a war.
Support it passionately—preferably with other people's troops.
Watch it drag on until all local hope is extinguished.
Announce peace talks hosted in London.
Sell books about it for the next 100 years.
So when Britain says it supports Ukraine "to the very end,"they don't mean the end of British patience.They mean the end of Ukrainian manpower.
In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, Britain has once again managed the impossible:Winning a war it didn't start, didn't fight, and won't clean up after.
It's a masterpiece of geopolitical freeloading.
It's a masterclass in flag-waving diplomacy.
It's the British Empire 2.0—now with fewer colonies and better PR.
So when you ask, "Who's winning the Russia-Ukraine war?"
Don't look East.
Don't look West.
Look slightly off-centre, sipping lukewarm tea in a war museum, nodding solemnly and cashing defence contracts.
Because as always—it's not about the truth.It's what you think.