Is the Ukraine conflict turning into a world war involving Britain? If so, shouldn’t there be more open discussion about it? I mention this because British Storm Shadow long range missiles have been used by Ukraine inside Russian territory. Yesterday, the Russian ambassador to London, Andrei Kelin, declared that “Britain and the UK is now directly involved in this war, because this firing [of Storm Shadow] cannot happen without Nato staff, British staff as well”. In other words, Russia draws a distinction between sending tanks to Ukraine as Britain has done, and the use of long range missiles which require Nato operatives to function.
It is an escalation of Britain’s involvement in the conflict and, as such, it should have merited a full debate in the House of Commons, and a vigorous public discussion by defence chiefs and defence ministers in papers such as this. Support for Ukraine against a self-evident war of aggression by Russia is one thing; open ended financial and military support without any concomitant peace plan is another. Bluntly, Britain cannot afford that open-ended support; it is beyond the country’s means.
The UK has spent some £14 billion in support of Ukraine since the invasion. Some of it is justified, such as the support of the country’s civic infrastructure through the World Bank; some of it, including elements of the £7 billion in direct military aid, is questionable. The Government talks endlessly about the £22 billion black hole in the country’s finances (some of which is attributable to its capitulation to NHS pay demands); well, £7 billion constitutes quite a hole – about a third – in it.
Robert Fox, this paper’s brilliant defence correspondent, has eloquently analysed the Ukrainian war itself and the implications for the UK and Europe in terms of Russian cyber attacks and wilful damage to energy infrastructure. But he has also repeatedly described the crisis in UK defence spending, notwithstanding repeated defence reviews. We are not able to fulfil our existing commitments to our armed forces. If we’re talking about funding black holes, then let’s start with the MoD.
If Russia were to attack a Nato member, I’d say tear up the Budget and send whatever land troops we can muster. But Ukraine is not a Nato member
Britain is committed by treaty and therefore in honour to defence of Nato; an attack on one member is an attack on all. So if Russia were to attack Sweden, the newest member, or Poland, arguably the most vulnerable, I’d say, go for it. Tear up the Budget, and send whatever land troops we can actually muster – not that many, I fear – to engage with the Russian incursion. Nato is the one alliance that we are bound to.
But there is a reason why Ukraine is not in Nato and it is because of its uniquely complex relationship with Russia; Crimea, which Russia annexed ten years ago, is by no means straightforward in terms of sovereignty. Ukraine’s misfortune is not just its history – including the intentional mass starvation of its people by Stalin in the 1930s – but its disputed borders. It should not, therefore, be a Nato member and while it is not, we are not bound to throw everything at its defence. And yet Boris Johnson this summer criticised Nato’s “mealy-mouthed procrastination” over setting out a clear programme for Ukraine’s accession to Nato.
It was, indeed, one of the most striking parts of Boris Johnson’s memoir, Unleashed, that his most robust, rambunctious element was his description of his plucky train journey to Kyiv to go on walkabout with Volodymyr Zelensky; his rhetoric on Ukraine was so much more fighting than on any other subject. And that’s the trouble; for any beleaguered politician in the UK, it’s much easier to sound off about standing up to Russian aggression (which is real) in Ukraine than addressing the hard questions at home. Of course he talks eloquently about the threat to the rest of Europe if we appease Russia, but I repeat; we are bound absolutely to the defence of Nato, including Poland. We are not bound to open-ended commitment to Ukraine.
We should, therefore, I think, be more willing to consider what a peace deal might look like. Any deal that would deny Ukraine defence supplies for the future and economic aid for reconstruction is not viable. No, just no. But equivocation about territory in the disputed Russian occupied eastern regions – for instance, joint Russian-Ukraine citizenship for residents of Russian-speaking territory – could be on the table. Most importantly, we could and should also be willing to guarantee that for the foreseeable future Ukraine would not be admitted to Nato membership. At a ‘peace’ conference in Istanbul in April, 2022, Russia demanded that Ukraine would have to accept permanent neutrality in return for international security guarantees underwritten by the five permanent members of the UN security council. But no Nato troops on Ukrainian territory. This might have been all it took to see off the Russian invasion in the first place.
We should ask ourselves whether we are seriously in a position to continue an open-ended commitment to Ukraine in all circumstances
Let’s be realistic. Donald Trump’s inauguration in January means that he will push for a peace deal in Ukraine, though that obviously does not prevent Ukraine from fighting on without US assistance. That is something that will fundamentally change the conflict; the prospect of Europe and the UK functioning without US help is slender. It is why President Biden has authorised the use of landmines – indiscriminate weapons that we should eschew even if Russia does not – and US long range missiles within Russia; he seeks to put Ukraine in a better negotiating position. And in doing so, this old, weak man has done his bit to make the situation more febrile, more dangerous.
Russia as well as Ukraine has already paid a terrible price for the war; according to the BBC Russian service it has lost over 78,000 men at a conservative estimate since the invasion in February 2022 – a serious toll for a country suffering a demographic crisis. Its global standing is as low as it has been at any time in the twentieth century, excepting the invasion of Hungary. It has been driven to bizarre expedients such as deploying 10,000 unfortunate North Korean troops as the contemporary equivalent of cannon fodder. It is in no position to push back against any peace deal that Donald Trump proposes.
As for Britain, before condemning such a peace deal, we should ask ourselves whether we are seriously in a position to continue an open-ended commitment to Ukraine in all circumstances. Rachel Reeves committed to £3 billion in continued support for Ukraine in the Budget “for as long as it takes”. Who pays the price: cold pensioners, angry farmers, hospices? And what about Britain’s commitment to spend 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence?
We cannot afford an open-ended war in Ukraine. But we can commit ourselves to Nato. The two things are not the same. But anything more is a fantasy.
Melanie McDonagh is a columnist for The Standard
