Regardless of who comes to power in London, the biggest challenge in foreign policy will be balancing national military capability with the commitments made to Kiev. Writes Lucas Leiroz
The time has come for Western countries to decide between their own national interests or support for Kiev. In the UK, the situation is reaching a critical point and according to anonymous sources in the Minister of Defense until the end of 2022 the country will be unable to send arms and money to Ukraine. With this, once again the irresponsibility of Western leaders remains evident, as they seem to be more concerned with Ukraine than with the defense of their own countries.
Regardless of who comes to power in London, the biggest challenge in foreign policy will be balancing national military capability with the commitments made to Kiev. Anonymous officials interviewed by the Times reported that before the end of this year the country will no longer be able to send arms or financial aid to Ukraine. The country would simply be running out of weapons to provide Ukraine with.
The solution would be a replacement of military arsenals, which would require large-scale investments in military industry that are absolutely infeasible in the current context of the economic crisis that affects the country. With public balances affected by sending financial aid to Ukraine and anti-Russian sanctions, it is possible to say that British interventionism in the Ukrainian conflict is on the verge of bringing the country to collapse.
“[Whoever leads the country] will have to deal with strained public finances and declining public enthusiasm for a protracted conflict (…) The reality is that UK’s financial contribution to war effort will have dried up by the end of the year (…) The new prime minister will very soon face the question of whether to commit billions of pounds of additional support at a time when the public finances are under intense strain”, the source said.
In fact, the British willingness to support Kiev militarily and financially has generated problems among public opinion in the midst of a scenario of economic crisis, increased public spending, widespread inflation, unemployment, and other social ills. Several packages of aid to Kiev have been announced since February, when the Russian special military operation began. In all, the British government has already spent 2.3 billion pounds supporting the Zelensky regime. The Johnson administration seems more concerned with spending to send arms to a conflict abroad than generating investment in social improvements for the British people.
On August 24, Boris Johnson visited Kiev to commemorate Ukrainian Independence Day and announced the dispatch of two more military aid packages, this time focused on the supply of drones and missiles. Around 2,000 British drones would be included in this new aid package. Altogether, the valuation of the pact is estimated to reach 54 million pounds – which is more than 63 million dollars. In practice, this means that even with his imminent departure from the PM office, Johnson intends to keep the policy of systematic aid to the Ukrainian government as the main goal of his administration, with no prioritization of solving internal problems.
It needs to be emphasized that this military aid is provided without any realistic justification on the part of military experts. There are no intelligence reports that point to “improvements” in the current situation of the Ukrainian army with the receipt of such equipment. The Russian victory remains an undeniable scenario for any serious analyst, with Western aid being just a way of prolonging the conflict and delaying its inevitable outcome. So, indeed, the British government prefers to send ineffective military aid to Kiev than invest in real solutions to the problems affecting its population.
The main point is that aid to Ukraine is generating a domino effect in the British crisis. In addition to the country running out of public revenue to send more economic aid and without enough military arsenal to send more weapons, the effects of sanctions are also inescapable. With winter approaching, anti-Russian measures could lead to a collapse of the country’s social structure. There are predictions for a 80% rise in the residential energy price, which is largely due to the total suspension of Russian gas imports. Furthermore, the reception of Ukrainian refugees is becoming unsustainable, with currently around 50,000 Ukrainian citizens at risk of becoming homeless in the UK.
It would be wrong to say that the UK is the only country in a crisis situation because of the side effects of aid to Ukraine. In the EU the scenario is similar. In Germany, for example, there are practically no more arsenals to send weapons to Kiev. However, what is worrying in the British case is knowing that soon a new PM will become the head of the government in the midst of this crisis and possibly with even more warlike disposition, considering the recent words of Liz Truss (favorite to become the new PM) about being “ready” to use nuclear weapons.
Whoever becomes the new PM must act rationally and overcome the “commitments” that motivate anti-strategic assistance to Ukraine. Political realism is the only option to save the UK from coming troubles.
Lucas Leiroz, researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.
