Many news headlines and social media have been outcrying of the stupidity of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s decision to send military troops to Ukraine. The same rhetoric has been announced by France’s President Emmanuel Macron. The talking point is that the UK & broader Europe wants continued war with Russia with no apparent end in sight and that both of these Napoleon wanna-be’s want to conquer Russia. While this is partly true (click the button) and I don’t doubt that Starmer in particular is a fool, I believe that almost everybody is missing the real purpose for this mobilization. Most do not factor in that Ukraine is a corrupt totalitarian country completely funded and controlled by the United States at this point (it doesn’t help that it’s Eastern portion is levelled either). The war has already been lost, whether you’re hearing this to your ears or not. So it there must be another purpose for mobilizing such vast numbers of troops.
Resources; Always Resources
In a classic sneaky Trotskyist fashion, Starmer signed a 100-year agreement with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy effectively selling off major infrastructure, resources, ports, pipelines, lands and more. The sneaky part is that this agreement was signed just days before Trump was inaugurated as President. Cheeky as the Brits would say.
I believe the meeting with Zelenskyy in the White House was over this fact, the fact that Ukraine partnered with the United Kingdom and it’s European partners over the United States (Trump met Starmer around this time too).
The new 100-year partnership between the UK and Ukraine builds upon existing agreements between the two countries and aims to “deepen security ties and strengthen partnership for future generations”. Interestingly, the agreement comes at a time when future US support for Ukraine is uncertain. Let’s have a look at the breakdown of this agreement from UK parliament.
What agreements are already in place between the UK and Ukraine?
Several agreements already underpin the UK’s relationship with Ukraine, including:
- a 15-year Memorandum of Understanding on defence cooperation signed in 2016
- a Political, Free Trade and Strategic Partnership Agreement signed in 2020
- a ten-year Agreement on Security Co-operation signed in January 2024
The previous government described the Agreement on Security Co-operation, which gave long-term security guarantees to Ukraine.
What does the new agreement comprise?
The 100-year partnership agreement comprises:
- A legally binding treaty, the text of which has been published but not yet laid before Parliament
- a political declaration outlining specific areas of practical cooperation; again, unspecified
The political declaration is made under article 11 of the treaty, which allows for further agreements or arrangements to be made “as necessary and appropriate”. Very arbitrary language on the surface, perhaps they don’t want the public to know specifics.
Despite this vagueness, they do cover some important details:
Defence and security
The agreement builds upon existing military support to Ukraine, and the provisions on security cooperation set out in agreements signed in 2016, 2020 and 2024. Further to the 2024 agreement, the partnership declaration envisages:
- creating joint defence capability projects and defence industrial enterprises
- creating “flexible rapid response mechanisms”, including military formations to respond to “challenges” that may arise in either country
- assessing options for establishing and maintaining military infrastructure in Ukraine, including military bases, logistics depots, storage facilities and war reserve stockpiles
- establishing a new maritime security partnership to ensure safety of navigation and the protection of trade in the Baltic, Black and Azov Seas, including operational cooperation through joint taskforces, where appropriate
The political declaration also reiterates the government’s commitment to providing £3 billion a year in military assistance until 2030/31, and to support Ukraine “for as long as needed”.
So, we’re looking at an agreement that enables industrial development of defence companies, to maintain military infrastructure including logistics depots, bases, storage facilities and reserve stockpiles–of what exactly? Could a “new maritime security partnership” mean withdrawing resources from these stockpiles back to Great Britain?
From the Ukrainian side, they receive a continued massive payday–I mean, they… *checks notes* become a democracy…
Economy, trade and scientific advancement
- Trade and economic cooperation across a range of sectors, including financial services, transport and infrastructure, aims to build on the 2020 Political, Free Trade and Strategic Partnership Agreement.
- An economic recovery programme will aim to reduce Ukraine’s reliance on humanitarian aid and help build economic resilience.
- A new Grain Verification Scheme will aim to track stolen grain from Ukraine’s occupied regions, and scientific and technology partnerships will be established, or advanced, in healthcare, disease prevention, agri-tech, space and drones.
The UK will also be a preferred partner for Ukraine’s energy sector, including on projects developing:
- renewable energy sources
- a critical minerals strategy
- steel production
A “preferred Partner”–over the United States?
Who is stealing the grain exactly? Does this mean that the UK can receive these grain shipments? It sounds as if the UK is trying to push out the rest of the world by establishing themselves as the main receiver of Ukrainian assets.
Does the treaty oblige the UK to defend Ukraine in the event of future aggression?
The agreement does not contain a mutual defence clause akin to NATO’s Article 5 provisions. Reiterating the 2024 Agreement on Security Co-operation, in the event of aggression from a third party both countries will consult “within 24 hours” and commit to providing “swift and sustained” security assistance, military equipment as necessary and economic support. It does not oblige either party to deploy military forces.
Legally speaking, while this does operate scary language for the Russians, it does not guarantee that a military will be activated in Ukraine–the UK simply doesn’t have another means of enforcing this agreement
During his visit to Kyiv in January, where the agreement was signed, Prime Minister Keir Starmer indicated that he was willing to consider deploying British forces to Ukraine as part of a wider peacekeeping force if a peace agreement were negotiated with Russia. The agreement makes no specific reference to peacekeeping forces, however.
Military Action
All told, UK military forces clock in around 70,000 active and reserve personnel. This would mean that nearly half of the British forces would be dedicated towards this goal of achieving security of their contract. This number has since been revised and included other European nations too:
Starmer’s proposed peacekeeping contingent would include around 10,000 troops, mostly provided by the U.K. and France. Thirty-five countries have agreed to supply the peacekeeping mission with weapons, logistics, and intelligence support.
Changing Positions; Opportunities?
This still brings into question Great Britains ability to rise to the occasion if internal conflicts were to come about against their overseas territories. It’s well known that China has been playing an active political role in many former British Caribbean states, would this continue with all eyes on Ukraine?
It’s also likely that Britain may be overextending themselves here if the USA (who feels ousted and of course wants their cut of the resources) and Russia (who won’t constitutionally recognize a contract of this sort to be valid for such a time period made by someone set to leave office) decide to call this contract a big nothing-burger.
In fact, some are already calling this arrangement an act of futility. Ian Proud, a former British diplomat and author of a book critical of the UK’s diplomatic approach to Russia, said the agreement is “meaningless” and criticised it for containing “nothing new” beyond pre-existing agreements.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry called the agreement “null and void” and a “PR step” on the way to making Ukraine “a new British colony”. The Kremlin said any cooperation on establishing military infrastructure in Ukraine was a “worrying element” and criticized references to a UK-Ukrainian maritime security partnership partly focused on the Sea of Azov, which Russia considers theirs.
You can strangely imagine a situation where Trump and Putin would be aligned against the European powers. Both Putin and Trump have vocally taken a pro-business and anti-war stance with respect to the conflict. It’s worth noting that the EU has stated today (March 21st) that it intends to be less reliant on NATO for its defence capacity. There are even major moves to try to win Canada over to the European-side.
I remain skeptical that full out war will commence since Ukraine looks to be low on fuel to keep going with any length of time. Full out war or not, Ukraine is going to be ripped to pieces.
Closing
The United Kingdom signing a far-fetched 100-year deal with Zelenskyy (whom I suspect will be killed soon) is an unusual act but I believe it’s part of a larger, far-sighted plan that receives little discussion. While the world thinks that this is Round 2 of a completely lost and humiliating proxy war, I believe that this is a new battle not against Russia, but against the scavengers looking to get their chunk of what’s left of the Ukrainian cadaver.
Despite being tight allies throughout history, changing policies between the United States and the United Kingdom may give rise to a whole new unexpected conflict. Just like hundreds of years before now, resources, ports and territory is paramount to a nations strength.
What do you think is going to happen?
#StayOnTheBall
