In a bid to distract from his government’s internal issues, UK Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer appears intent on capitalizing on the ongoing Ukraine crisis. His latest proposal? Deploying British troops to Ukraine for a staggering five years.
There are numerous flaws in this strategy, but let’s start with two glaring points. First, as POLITICO reported today, Ukraine’s allies are engaged in discussions aimed at achieving a peace that currently seems more theoretical than practical. These talks resemble an elaborate charade at best.
Secondly, and crucially, Russia is unlikely to welcome EU troops as peacekeepers or in any other role. Thus, British forces would become legitimate targets in an already volatile conflict.
Ultimately, this may all be mere posturing. As US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff remarked to Tucker Carlson, “It’s a combination of a posture and a pose, along with a tendency towards simplification. There seems to be this expectation that we must emulate Winston Churchill.”
The Telegraph reported:
“Military leaders are advocating for the deployment to assist in training and revitalizing the Ukrainian army, aiming to thwart any further invasion attempts by Vladimir Putin.”
“A phased withdrawal plan was discussed among Britain and France, focusing on a ‘coalition of the willing’ to maintain any post-conflict peace agreement.”
This proposed European force would ostensibly be there to deter Russia from violating any settlement and to provide much-needed relief for Ukrainian troops.
Let’s engage in a bit of mathematical gymnastics: can a peacekeeping force of 10,000 to 15,000 personnel really hold in check over 600,000 battle-hardened Russian troops?
“The primary purpose of the deployment would be to immediately commence training and rebuilding Ukraine’s armed forces to prevent another Russian offensive. The troops would gradually withdraw, with the final contingent expected to leave around the five-year mark.”
These lofty ambitions come at a time when the UK’s financial situation is far from rosy. Public debt hovers near 100% of GDP, prompting Labour to raise taxes in the 2024 budget to sustain public services.
Deploying forces to Ukraine could cost between £1-2 billion annually for a modest contingent—not to mention the political ramifications if British servicemen and women begin returning in body bags.
Currently, the UK Army boasts a mere 74,000 regulars, the smallest force seen in over 200 years, and recruitment efforts are falling 15% short of targets for 2024.
With aging tanks and limited air defense capabilities, it’s hard to envision how a 5,000-strong force could thrive in the challenging conditions of the Ukrainian conflict.
Some analysts suggest that a 5,000-troop deployment would necessitate extensive allied support and years of preparation.
Many still recall that in January 2024, outgoing Chief of the General Staff General Sir Patrick Sanders cautioned that the UK ‘lacks the capacity for a major war’, advocating for a “citizen army” to address threats like Russia. He emphasized that simply increasing reservists would be insufficient; a comprehensive societal effort is necessary for effective preparation.
Dr. Rob Johnson, a former Ministry of Defence director for war readiness, informed the Financial Times that the British army would ‘rapidly exhaust ammunition in large-scale combat’ and noted that ‘shortages in ships and aircraft’ would severely limit broader operational capabilities. He stated, ‘In any larger-scale operation, we would run out of ammunition swiftly.’
This past July, General Sir Richard Barrons, former Joint Forces commander, asserted that the military is operating at a ‘bare minimum’, rendering it unfit for significant conflict or homeland defense against missile threats. He bluntly stated, ‘Right now, our Armed Forces are not up to the job.’
Read more:
Starmer and Macron Become Obstacles to Peace, as the British and French Leaders Adopt Condescending Tone Towards Trump Administration, Pretend To Teach Them How To Deal With Putin
