March 22, 2025 - 8:00am
When it comes to Keir Starmer’s bid to carve out a leading role for the United Kingdom in Ukraine’s post-war security, the reality checks just keep coming.
The Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for putting boots on the ground always contrasted sharply with the stark warnings from senior military figures that the Army is simply too small to play even a meaningful peacekeeping role along the 1,500-mile Russo-Ukrainian front line, which is why the plan depended on assembling a so-called coalition of the willing.
Unfortunately for Starmer, there was an inverse relationship between a country having troops to send (such as Poland) and a country being enthusiastic about sending them (Britain). Nor was it clear that Europe was — at least yet — up for the huge logistical challenge of deploying and maintaining 30,000 or more troops in the Donbas. As such, the game was probably up for that even before Vladimir Putin made European troop deployment a red line in the ceasefire negotiations.
Now, we have a pivot. Speaking to 31 potential members of the “coalition of the willing” near London this week, Starmer has started shifting his emphasis. Any intervention, he now suggests, is far more likely to hinge on air and sea power. This is certainly more realistic, but how much more realistic?
Air power is certainly Nato’s strongest card. An aerial commitment could operate out of bases in Poland, Romania, and other members of the alliance, and could be adequately supplied by land or air. Enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine is practically achievable, and well within the alliance’s comfort zone.
It is not without risk, though. No-fly zones have become a Nato staple, but usually in the context of overwhelming superiority against either insurgencies or ramshackle national militaries. Ukraine would be different: as when the war started, the big question would concern whether countries enforcing a no-fly zone would be prepared to actually engage the VKS, Russia’s air force, if it came to it.
Then there is the danger that deniable forces, such as the separatist militias in Donetsk and Luhansk, could inflict greater losses of very expensive aircraft than Western politicians might expect. Nato’s reliance on air power is well known, and if countries such as Serbia have been investing heavily in state-of-the-art anti-aerial weapon systems, Russia will no doubt do the same.
But what about the sea? One can see the appeal for London: one ship looks like a much more substantial contribution than a small number of troops. Consider the “Anglo-American” task force off Yemen that boasts just one Royal Navy vessel — which in turn lacks the proper weapons for hitting land targets.
Yet the odds of a naval deployment to Ukraine are minimal, for one simple reason: Turkey would have to let the vessels into the Black Sea, and it probably won’t. There aren’t even any US Navy vessels deployed there at present. Turkey is formally part of Nato, but its actual foreign policy posture is markedly different. From the start of the war it has walked a very fine line, helping to broker important deals on things such as Ukrainian grain exports but also continuing to let Russian gas flow through its pipelines.
Ankara has other reasons to oppose a Western fleet deployment on its northern flank. Principal among these is its increasingly bellicose approach towards Greece and Cyprus on the question of their maritime Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), due to a major new pipeline from Israel threatening its geographic chokehold on oil and gas supplies. This has become sufficiently serious that in 2021 France and Greece signed a mutual defence pact, outside Nato, aimed squarely at deterring Turkish aggression in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. It therefore doesn’t seem likely Erdoğan will invite a Nato task force into his back yard.
That might come as a bit of a relief to the Royal Navy, which already has a majority of its surface fleet either in maintenance or long repairs. It’s also another reason why a land deployment, which would likely need to be resupplied by sea, was always a very uncertain proposition.
But it does mean that we can expect Europe’s immediate contribution to Ukraine’s post-war security — assuming that a proper ceasefire even occurs — to eventually boil down to Nato’s favourite job: policing the skies. Starmer thus just needs to make sure that Britain, which currently lacks the aircraft planned for its own aircraft carriers, has something real to contribute.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf Poland won’t send forces to Ukraine,it seems even more idiotic to Britain to consider doing so. No amount of effeminate Churchillian posturing by an Arnold Rimmer clone will convince me otherwise.
Starmer is beyond reckless. He’s evil.
Nobody with an ounce of humanity could show such willingness to risk World War 3.
I find stupidity a sufficient explanation for Starmer. The results though will be evil.
This quote from Albert Camus has come to mind often these past few years but never more so than now.
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.”
I see him as the archetypal useful idiot.
Starmer is so far out of his depth on this that the only thing visible is his hat floating sadly on the surface.
A guy I knew at university would laughably insist when extremely drunk that he could beat World Champion boxer Naseem Hameed in a fight. Providing it was outside of the ring.
He still had more credibility than Starmer’s tough guy posturing.
Neither the UK nor EU allies have the personnel, equipment, money, national support or political will to bother Putin in the slightest. And what’s more, they have no achievable plan for ending the conflict, only exhortations that something really ought to be done, while continuing to throw money at what has become an effective stalemate.
Putin is not leaving Donbass or Crimea voluntarily and nothing short of major US ground and air deployment could make him. Even if the US were willing, that would bring us within spitting distance of nuclear war.
It’s a complete fantasy that Europe and the UK can rearm to the extent that they can do any of this without the US. The €150bn fund mooted does not even come close to what would be needed and it will take a decade just to spend that. And that’s before you consider the political, social and C&C costs and challenges.
If he’s not careful Starmer is going to talk himself and us into a conflict we are woefully ill-equipped for.
to put it in a nutshell: Keir Starmer can ‘talk the talk’ but can’t ‘walk the walk’.
But he intends others to do the walking,the walking the plank. And we’ve even conveniently dehumanized them. No need to feel.sad. They’re not people. They’re Boots – on the ground.
Meaningless posturing from Starmer. All to ready to deploy British troops and then see them prosecuted if they actually are called upon to defend themselves.
In the July crisis of 1914 the interventionist faction in the Cabinet employed a variety of stratagems to incrementally advance their position with regard to involving British forces in a continental war. This necessarily involved convincing the peace faction that the latter need not take any any decisive action to prevent it at any time during the discussions.
Intervention was advanced on the basis of ‘friendship’ and not of ‘obligations’. The interventionists deliberately fostered the impression that British intervention would be confined to use of the Royal Navy and defensive operations in the English Channel to protect the French coast.
Churchill expressly said that the naval war would be cheap. The impression given was that there was no need to send the Army to the continent. There was certainly no idea that a huge army of conscripts would eventually be needed.
At the beginning of the Ukraine war there were many urgent in demanding a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine. Now this proposal is being returned to. The consequences that may arise from such a deployment remain as before.
Given the nature of the combat as it has evolved, what contribution to security would policing the skies be? Would it be like taking police constables off the beat and putting them in motor vehicles?
I believe the British Expeditionary Force in 1914 numbered some 250,000, half of which were scattered abroad serving the Empire. The force was made up of highly trained men. Britain believed that their control of the seas would secure success for them. They massively underestimated the challenge. Germany’s forces stood at something like 2 million men. The British soon realised their mistake and the war became a charnel house as inexperienced and very young, often unfit conscripts and volunteers were sent to the front. The sacrifice of great men – and women- on all sides of the conflict was for nothing at all. It was not the war to end all wars.
Many that lead us now seem not only to not want to learn from history but to repeat it.
billy the cat and tintin adventures in global politics. europe deserves better
An air exclusion zone is a non-runner (see Libya) and the Franco-Greek mutual defence pact reflects the many tensions in Europe that will dampen down enthusiasm for military forces from one state camping on the territory (or in the skies or on the seas) of another. If the Poles (who won’t) sent troops to Ukraine they might be tempted to remain in western Ukraine. Stay focused UnHerd!
I just read in the BBC about Witkoff’s humiliating words about Starmer and tributes to Putin. I don’t think the British have only two choices. Either to be Europeans or vassals of the Americans.
It makes you wonder what the incriminating film they’ve got on Starmer to control him has on it. Must be strong stuff to have him jumping like a scared bunny rabbit every time it looks likely Peace might break out. And of course like Macron he’s under 24 hour surveillance. Like Macron his Controller goes under the identity of his Wife.
There is an understandable focus from us in the west to focus on the shortcomings, risks and challenges facing ‘our side’ in this war. But think for a moment on the Russian situation. Its armed forces have been humiliated, they have suffered casualties of close to a million which is increasingly hard to hide from the home front. The economy while doing better than expected is still weak and is weakening and Putin will have major problems with inflation before the year end. . He has to rely increasingly on Chinese military help which with every passing month inches Russia closer to being a client state. Putin, if he doesn’t bite at Trumps peace deal, might still win in Ukraine by sheer brute force but his time to do so is running out.
Turkey’s position has always been pro Ukraine. It’ll seek some benefits with the EU/Europe, trade agreements, defence contracts – Erdogan doesn’t miss an opportunity, but it’s no ally of Putin. It’ll not block western naval access to Black Sea if part of the eventual ceasefire arrangement. It welcomed it before and RN regularly patrolled there.
Air support for Ukraine in any ceasefire important but less so in the drone era. UK Troop deployment would be small but a significant tripwire but much more importantly would boost Ukrainian morale. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have now been trained on Salisbury Plain and there is a bond already with many UK armed forces personnel.
The big game changer though is Germany. Putin could not have scored a bigger own-goal than to rouse them from their slumber. For that he’s much to thank his fanboy Don J.
Please define “significant tripwire.”
Rouse Germany from its slumber? Germany’s economy is kaput, it’s heavily into green ie no energy, it doesn’t border Russia and Poland is unlikely to welcome German troops anywhere near its territory.
And AfD which got a sizeable share of the vote opposes Germany’s involvement in the Ukraine debacle which means many Germans oppose it…
The idea that Germany will become a serious military power is fantasy as is Starmer’s posturing of the UK as a serious power either militarily or economically.
I believe the phrase is “let’s get real”.
It’s reassuring that Ursula von der Leyen is taking the lead in the new European defence strategy. Large orders for broomsticks have already been placed.
Who wants to boost Ukraine morale. Why? What for? Why are we being demanded to care about these sly spivs and golddiggers
—-Turkey’s position has always been pro Ukraine.—-
Really? Erdogan is extremely pragmatic (or, if you wish, opportunistic). He chooses his course of action depending on his/Türkiye’s interests in each specific case.
Here’s something from Reuters, Oct 23 2024:
“Erdogan has said his relationship with Putin is based on a “joint understanding, mutual trust and respect”. Putin has called Erdogan a “strong leader” and “reliable” partner while also saying he has not always found him easy to deal with.
Their two countries […], have expanded cooperation on trade, tourism and energy since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, although Turkey has opposed Moscow’s intervention and provided Kyiv with attack drones.”
Q.E.D.
The only thing you can say with certainty about Turkey’s position is that is it pro-Turkey ! Which is actually exactly as it should be.
My reading of Turkey’s actions is that it follows its own interests at all times and is neither pro-Ukraine not anti-Russian.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that frontline countries like Poland and Turkey don’t have the luxury of indulging in luxury beliefs (apologies for clumsy working).