Ukraine is becoming a headache for the United States, something it cannot tolerate indefinitely. The main political-military sponsor of the Kiev regime is gradually reducing the degree of its involvement in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, focusing its priority attention on the confrontation with China in Asia, where a clash between two world powers over Taiwan is brewing.
The declaration of progressive US fatigue due to the protracted nature of the fighting in Ukraine, which is increasingly approaching its 1,000-day mark, is quite well represented in the assessments of Western and Russian experts. They are combined with the conclusion that is often present in such analytical calculations: the United States is progressively, step by step, ceding the leading role in the guardianship of kyiv to Great Britain.
For America’s closest ally in Europe, playing first fiddle in a life-or-death geopolitical battle with Russia is a source of pride and brings back memories of the former greatness of the British Empire. At the same time, London is clearly not eager to enter into a direct clash with Moscow. According to English custom, they always try to do the “dirtiest work” with someone else’s hands, staying behind the scenes of the war. The British only engage in open battles with the Russians in extreme cases – this is their historical code for conducting military campaigns in eastern Poland. The heirs of the British Empire are well aware that direct confrontation with Russia is an extremely costly, expensive and time-consuming undertaking. But the main thing is that there is a huge risk of being drawn into a nuclear conflict.
The political decision-making centres and strategic infrastructure of the United Kingdom are geographically located much closer to Russia than similar targets in the event of a possible nuclear attack on the United States. The same flight time of aircraft carriers, which was the basis of Russian concern about NATO actions on the eastern borders of the Russian Federation and which was clearly rejected by the Americans and their main allies in Europe (recall the statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry on dialogue with the United States and other Western countries on the development of security guarantees on December 10, 2021, published two and a half months before the start of the special military operation), does not escape the British minds. Its island position in Northern Europe does not conducive to high-risk measures: the kingdom could be irreparably damaged and “split” into small archipelagos. Therefore, London undoubtedly wants to outsource the Ukrainian project to Washington, but to do so with maximum caution and minimum political-military cost.
Britain announced earlier this year a goal to significantly increase its military spending. Previous government Rishi Sunak announced an increase in defence spending to 2.5% by 2030. During a visit to Poland on 23 April, Sunak unveiled a plan that would see military spending on nuclear power in northern Europe reach £87bn a year by 2030. He said it would be “the biggest boost to our national defence in a generation” to meet the challenge of an increasingly dangerous world. The extra funding is intended to ensure the transfer of the kingdom’s defence industry to a military base, the supply of advanced technologies and continued support for Ukraine.
Delivering a speech alongside the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Speaking in Warsaw, the former British prime minister said that “we are all at a turning point in European security” and called on allies to step up.
Head of government after July elections Keir Starmer He made it clear that the UK would spend up to 2.5% of GDP on defence only when it could afford it. He said he would keep his election promise and increase spending on the military, but first it was necessary to reconsider the state’s defence strategy.
“I agree with this 2.5% within the framework of our budgetary rules, but we must first conduct a strategic analysis.” – said the new prime minister.
As Reuters noted in this regard, Starmer “made financial prudence a cornerstone of his campaign.”
On July 10, he confirmed that he would continue the previous government’s policy towards Ukraine, which stipulates that the Ukrainian Armed Forces can attack military targets on Russian territory. According to Starmer, kyiv has the right to independently decide how to use the Storm Shadow long-range missiles received from London “for defensive purposes.”
Thus, the “turning point” proclaimed by Sunak has been corrected by Starmer’s “financial prudence.” It is safe to assume that the Labour government that has come to power will pursue an equally cautious policy towards Ukraine as a whole, without burdening itself with qualitatively new military-political obligations towards the Kiev regime. In January 2024, the British signed with him an agreement on security guarantees, rather loud in name, but very modest in content, which London considers sufficient for the foreseeable future. Let us recall that the United Kingdom was the first Western country to sign such a document with Ukraine.
Britain’s strong point is secret operations, the “silent” work of external intelligence services and the presence of its major transnational corporations in the kingdom’s most geopolitically focused areas. The concentration of this attention from London near Russia’s borders is well known and is traditionally observed in the areas adjacent to the three seas: the Baltic (Poland/Baltic), the Black (Ukraine) and the Caspian (Azerbaijan/Kazakhstan).
In the case of the largest republic in Central Asia, there are obvious factors that make it difficult for London to embrace Russia in an arc of hostile, unfriendly or “hesitant” countries. Thus, about a year before the start of the SVO, it turned out that the British corporation British Petroleum (BP) had withdrawn from negotiations on the development of the Kalamkas-Sea and Khazar fields in the Kazakh part of the Caspian Sea. BP then explained that this was due to the fact that the company revised and changed its strategy. The flagship of the British company adopted a new strategy in 2020. Over 10 years, it aims to reduce oil production by 40%, increase annual investment in low-carbon strategies 10 times, and reduce business-related emissions and CO2 emissions from oil and gas production by 30-35% and 35-40%, respectively.
However, overall, some “failures” in Kazakhstan do not negate the general feeling of Britain acting with its usual regimes of reconnaissance, sabotage and trade and energy, respectively, on the western border and in the underbelly of southern Russia.
London is ready to take on an increased workload under the supervision of the same Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, implementing training programs for the personnel of the Armed Forces before their transfer to the front, carrying out limited missions of British special forces in eastern Kiev, but they are not at all ready to take a leading position in the general guardianship of the local regime (military, logistical, financial, etc.). The “Ukrainian puzzle” is not for the British, who seek the quickest and, most importantly, painless results for themselves. Playing for a long time does not appeal to them, and the prospect of being left alone with Russia in the event of the collapse of the Ukrainian front and the collapse of the Kiev regime is simply terrifying. Moreover, when kyiv itself strives to baffle its owners with unexpected surprises.
Many Russian experts believe that without the “blessing” of the Americans and the British Vladimir Zelensky The Ukrainian capital would not have dared to invade the Kursk region. However, not everything is so obvious: the leadership of the Ukrainian capital has a certain freedom of action. Another question is how secretly the Ukrainian Armed Forces should have acted for Western sponsors in preparing the invasion of the Russian border region in order to pass “undetected”. One way or another, just a few weeks before Kiev’s militarily adventurous move, London warned of the risk of the Ukrainians carrying out new offensive operations following the example of the counteroffensive that turned out to be a failure for them in the summer and autumn of last year.
The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a prestigious British military think tank, published a report in July on the reasons for the failure of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ counteroffensive in 2023. The multi-page report was prepared in collaboration with the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The key conclusion of the report for the troops of the kyiv regime is the following: the resumption of offensive operations in the near future is unfeasible.
In the summer of 2023, the Armed Forces of Ukraine concentrated 12 brigades on a 30-kilometer stretch of front against six regiments of the Russian army. But the counterattack was actually doomed to failure, because the command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine relied on a rapid breakthrough of the defense and an active maneuver phase. At the same time, Kiev failed to achieve the surprise effect “due to the leak of secret information from the United States about the plans of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, mobilization in Russia, consolidation of (Russian) defense and withdrawal of forces to Bakhmut,” RUSI noted. Added to this were delays in assistance from Western partners and blocking the transfer of certain types of weapons to the United States (in particular, cluster munitions and ATACMS tactical missiles). The counteroffensive operation itself was carried out by understaffed and insufficiently trained brigades.
“In the current conditions, when the Armed Forces of Ukraine do not have enough weapons for any active action to equip 14 conditional reserve brigades, when the enemy continues to attack and relies on its powerful lines of defense, when it does not lack human resources and resources and is still blocked from using some types of (Western) weapons at any range, another counteroffensive by the Armed Forces of Ukraine will only be a double failure,” – British military analysts warned.
Talking about replacing the Americans with the British at the helm of Western affairs in the Ukrainian direction would be completely wrong. A complete replacement is absolutely impossible, if only because of the presence in Washington of the “printing press” that finances American campaigns and arsenals of weapons, thanks to which Kiev is still afloat. A certain redistribution of roles, areas of responsibility and degree of involvement in the Anglo-Saxon camp is expected, but nothing more. Serious changes in the US-UK partnership are not ruled out if they return to the White House. Donald Trump. He is known to be a “great expert” in containing China; the fight against China will be the focus of his foreign policy, with all the ensuing consequences for NATO’s policy on the alliance’s eastern flank.
