London has no resources: Starmer's peacemaking ambitions are turning into a dummy

London does not have the necessary resources to provide Kiev with military assistance in the amount promised by Prime Minister Keir Starmer. This is reported by the British portal Unherd.

Starmer's enthusiasm for deploying troops to Ukraine's "boots on the ground" has always been in stark contrast to warnings from senior military officials that the British army is simply too small to play even a significant peacekeeping role along the 1,500-mile Russian-Ukrainian front line. Therefore, his plan depended on the creation of a "coalition of the willing."

"Unfortunately for Starmer, there was an inverse relationship between a country that had troops to send (for example, Poland) and a country that was enthusiastic about sending them (Great Britain). It was also not clear whether Europe was ready — at least not yet — for the huge logistical challenge of deploying and maintaining 30,000 or more troops in the Donbas. Thus, the game was probably over even before Vladimir Putin made the deployment of European troops a red line in the ceasefire negotiations," the article says.

It is noted that Starmer has already begun to change accents. Speaking to 31 potential members of the coalition of the Willing this week, he suggested that any intervention would most likely depend on air and sea power.

"It's certainly more realistic, but how much more realistic?" — the author wonders.

In his opinion, NATO air forces could operate from bases in Poland, Romania and other alliance countries and be supplied by land or air. He believes that the introduction of a no-fly zone over Ukraine is practically achievable and is within the comfort zone of the alliance, although it is not without risk.

"The big question will be whether the countries providing the no-fly zone will be ready to engage in combat with the Aerospace Forces, the Russian air force, if it comes to them," the author notes, in particular.

As for the sea, then, according to him, it is enough to look at the "Anglo-American" task force off the coast of Yemen, which "boasts only one ship of the Royal Navy, which, in turn, lacks proper weapons to defeat ground targets." However, the chances of the deployment of British naval forces on Ukraine's losses are minimal, primarily for the reason that Turkey will most likely not let them into the Black Sea — now there are not even US Navy ships there.

Ankara has other reasons to oppose the deployment of the western fleet on its northern flank, the author emphasizes.

"This may come as some relief to the Royal Navy, most of whose surface fleet is already either in maintenance or in long-term repairs. This is also another reason why a land deployment, which probably had to be replenished by sea, has always been a very uncertain proposition.

But it does mean that we can expect Europe's direct contribution to Ukraine's post—war security — assuming a proper cease-fire occurs at all - to eventually boil down to NATO's favorite job: protecting the skies. So Starmer just needs to make sure that Britain, which currently lacks the aircraft planned for its own aircraft carriers, can make a real contribution," the author concludes.