Since he can’t perform in the fixing of his own kingdom’s problems, UK’s Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer has to milk the Ukraine crisis to the best of his abilities, going as far now as floating a plan for sending British troops to Ukraine for five years.
There’s so much wrong with his plan, so let’s just start with two points: first, as POLITICO reported today, Ukraine allies hold talks to secure a non-existent peace. They have seemingly advanced plans for a non-event.
Second, and most importantly, Russia will not accept EU troops as peace-keeper or any other capacity. So British troops would be fair targets in a high-intensity war.
So, in the end, it may all be posturing, as US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff stated to Tucker Carlson: “I think it’s a combination of a posture and a pose and a combination of also being simplistic. There is this sort of notion that we have all got to be like Winston Churchill.”
The Telegraph reported:
“Military chiefs want the deployment to help train and reconstitute the Ukrainian army to prevent Vladimir Putin from mounting another invasion.
A scheme for a phased withdrawal was raised in the discussions being led by Britain and France over a ‘coalition of the willing’ to uphold any post-conflict peace agreement.”
The European force would be used ‘to deter Russia from breaching any settlement and to offer Kiev’s men some much-needed respite.’
‘Do the math’ with me, here: a 10,000-15,000 peace-keeping force will keep 600,000+ battle-hardened Russian troops in check?
“But the main aim of the deployment would be to immediately start helping to train and rebuild Ukraine’s armed forces to deter another Russian attack. They would later withdraw in stages with final troops to leave around the five-year mark.”
These grandiose plans come at a point when UK’s finances are in a dire state, with public debt hovering near 100% of GDP, leading Labour in the 2024 budget to raise taxes to fund public services.
Ukraine deployment would require £1-2 billion yearly for a modest force – not to count the political cost if servicemen and women start returning home in body bags.
UK’s Army currently has 74,000 regulars, the smallest size in over 200 years. Its recruitment effort come up 15% short 2024.
With aging tanks and limited air defense systems, it does not sound like a 5,000-strong force that will excel in the brutal conditions of the war in Ukraine.
There are those who say that a 5,000-troop deployment ‘would require allied support and years of prep.’
Many of us still remember that, in January 2024, outgoing Chief of the General Staff General Sir Patrick Sanders warned that the UK ‘lacks capacity for a major war’, urging a “citizen army” to counter threats like Russia. ‘An increase in reservists alone would not be enough—we need a whole-of-society approach to prepare’.
Dr. Rob Johnson, MoD Ex-director of war readiness official told the Financial Times that the British army would ‘rapidly’ exhaust ammunition in large-scale combat, and that ‘shortages in ships and aircraft’ would limit broader capabilities. ‘In any larger-scale operation, we would run out of ammunition rapidly’.
This July, General Sir Richard Barrons, former Joint Forces commander stated that the military operates at a ‘bare minimum’, unfit for significant conflict or homeland defense against missile threats. ‘Right now, our Armed Forces are not up to the job’.
Read more:
The post UK’s Keir Starmer Reportedly Wants To Send Troops to Ukraine for 5 Years, Despite Unprepared and Unequipped British Armed Forces Being at Its Smallest Size in 2 Centuries appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.