Media: UK prime minister's risky Ukraine commitment exposes military strain

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has pledged British troops to Ukraine in the event of a peace agreement between Kyiv and Moscow, promising a long-term commitment to guarantee Ukraine's security.

This proposal, reminiscent of Cold War-era military engagements, has raised significant concerns over Britain's capability and readiness, Caliber.Az reports per foreign media.

“It would be a long-term commitment,” a government source said. “We are talking about years: as long as it takes to preserve a peace deal and deter Russia.” While this message signals Britain's determination, it also risks overextending its military forces, particularly given the challenges posed by the British army's relatively small size.

The commitment would require British forces to act as peacekeepers or stabilizers, but such a force must be equipped and authorized to defend Ukraine and deter further Russian aggression. “To deter someone you must be prepared to call their bluff. To fight.”

The British troops would need a robust command structure, potentially involving the United States, to ensure rapid response to Russian threats. Without this, the force could become ineffective, reminiscent of the Dutch UN detachment during the Srebrenica massacre, where peacekeepers were unable to act decisively.

Starmer’s approach to this issue contrasts with French President Macron’s stance on European strategic autonomy. While Macron views peacekeeping forces as a step toward greater European independence, Starmer emphasizes the necessity of US involvement as a safeguard. However, former President Trump’s reluctance to engage in the conflict raises doubts about the feasibility of such guarantees.

Furthermore, Britain's military capability is a key concern. The country’s army, with just 70,000 personnel, faces significant resource constraints. The British military has already depleted much of its artillery stock, leaving only limited resources available for such an extensive mission. The costs could also be prohibitive, with estimates of a potential £2 billion annually for a limited deployment.

While Starmer’s desire to support Ukraine is commendable, critics argue that sending troops without sufficient strength or equipment could lead to disaster. "The army must have the means to do the job," the report concludes.

By Vafa Guliyeva