‘𝘒𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘳 is a WEAK man!’  Patrick Christys launches a BLISTERING attack on the PM

Patrick Christys did not mince his words. In a furious on-air broadside that has since ricocheted across political circles, the broadcaster accused Prime Minister 𝘒𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘳 of presiding over a humiliating decline in Britain’s global standing — and, worse, of lacking the conviction to choose where the country truly stands in an increasingly dangerous world.

According to Christys, Starmer’s greatest flaw is not ideology but indecision. “Weakness,” he argued, “is not about Britain. It’s about the man leading it.”

A Prime Minister Ignored

The spark for the outburst was a series of extraordinary international developments that unfolded almost simultaneously. The United States, under President Donald T.r.u.m.p, seized a tanker originally linked to Venezuela but flying a Russian flag — in European waters, no less — using British military bases and with reported support from British intelligence assets.

Yet, astonishingly, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was not consulted directly beforehand.

At Prime Minister’s Questions, Starmer admitted that he had not spoken to President T.r.u.m.p recently beyond limited conversations over the Christmas period — and that, following a major European security summit in Paris, his contact was reportedly limited to White House aides rather than the President himself.

For Christys, this was nothing short of humiliating.

“If the Prime Minister of Britain is only able to speak to staffers while our bases are being used for high-risk military operations,” he said, “that tells you everything about how seriously we’re being taken.”

T.r.u.m.p, Greenland — and Britain on the Sidelines

The sense of marginalisation deepened further with the White House’s renewed focus on Greenland. Despite strong, unified statements from European leaders — including Starmer — warning against any attempt to coerce Denmark or Greenland, T.r.u.m.p responded bluntly: he “didn’t care” and refused to rule out military action.

The United States has since agreed to talks with Denmark directly. The UK and EU, meanwhile, appear to have been bypassed entirely.

To Christys, this was proof that Starmer’s strategy of moral positioning without power has failed.

“You can give speeches. You can issue statements. But if the world’s most powerful man doesn’t even feel the need to call you, then you’re not leading — you’re posturing.”

A Leader Trying to Be Everything — and Nothing

At the heart of Christys’ attack is the accusation that Starmer is trying to occupy every moral position at once.

On Gaza and Israel, Starmer attempts balance — pleasing no one.
On the EU, he insists Brexit won’t be reversed, while quietly drifting closer to Brussels.
On China, he signals openness.
On the US, he seeks approval — without offering loyalty.

“You cannot run foreign policy like a human rights seminar,” Christys said. “The world right now is not run by lawyers. It’s run by power.”

He described Starmer as a “jellyfish prime minister” — spineless, drifting with the current, unable to decide whether Britain belongs with Europe or with America.

The America Question

Central to the rant was a stark challenge: Britain must choose.

Christys argued that the post-war fantasy of Britain acting as a bridge between Europe and the United States no longer holds. Europe, he claimed, lacks economic dynamism, military strength, and strategic unity. America, under T.r.u.m.p, is blunt, aggressive — but decisive.

“Power does not equal kindness,” he acknowledged. “But power does equal security.”

In his view, aligning with Washington is not about admiration for T.r.u.m.p’s style, but realism about who ultimately guarantees Britain’s safety in an unstable world marked by Russia, Iran, nuclear proliferation and widening global conflict.

Borders, Defence — and the Perception of Collapse

The attack went further, tying foreign policy weakness to domestic failure. Christys accused the government of being unable to defend Britain’s borders, while simultaneously making bold promises about deploying British troops abroad.

“You can’t control who comes into the country,” he said, “but you want to lecture the world on morality and send boots overseas?”

He argued that this contradiction fuels international disrespect — and signals to allies and adversaries alike that Britain lacks seriousness.

Is Britain Weak — or Just Poorly Led?

Crucially, Christys insisted he was not attacking the country itself.

“Britain is not weak. British people are not weak,” he said. “What’s weak is leadership.”

In his view, the country still has immense capability, history, intelligence infrastructure and strategic value — but is being squandered by a government more concerned with appearing virtuous than exercising influence.

A Dangerous Moment

The world, Christys warned, is entering a volatile phase: escalating tensions involving Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Ukraine, and now Greenland. Nuclear proliferation is no longer a theoretical risk. Great power politics is back — raw, transactional and unforgiving.

“In moments like this,” he said, “you don’t need a man who wants everyone to like him. You need a man who knows who he stands with.”

The Verdict

The conclusion was brutal.

𝘒𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘳, Patrick Christys argued, is simply “the wrong man at the wrong time.” A leader shaped by courtrooms and committees, now faced with a world of force and consequence — and found wanting.

“He needs to decide,” Christys said. “America or Europe. Power or platitudes. Leadership or irrelevance.”

Because in a world that is hardening by the day, indecision is not neutrality.

It is weakness.