Prime Minister Keir Starmer has declared that Britain is ready to deploy troops and aircraft to Ukraine as part of an international effort to support a peace deal aimed at ending Russia’s war.

Speaking alongside U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House, Starmer outlined the UK’s willingness to play a central role in ensuring any peace agreement is “tough and fair” and does not “reward the aggressor.”

“I am clear that the UK is ready to put boots on the ground and planes in the air to support a deal, working together with our allies, because that is the only way that peace will last,” Starmer said, emphasising the UK’s commitment to Ukraine’s security.

The UK prime minister acknowledged Trump’s “deep and personal commitment” to securing a settlement in Ukraine and praised his role in “creating a moment of opportunity” to bring an end to the war. However, he stressed that any agreement must be backed by a firm deterrent against “future Russian aggression.”

“We have to win the peace… because it can’t be peace that rewards the aggressor or that gives encouragement to regimes like Iran,” Starmer said.

His comments come as Trump prepares to meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington tomorrow to sign a landmark agreement on U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral resources. The deal is expected to strengthen America’s supply of rare earth minerals, which Trump described as vital for U.S. industry.

“President Zelensky is coming to see me on Friday morning,” Trump said. “And we’re going to be signing really a very important agreement for both sides because it’s really going to get us into that country, working there.”

He referred to the agreement as a “backstop.”

Starmer also reinforced Britain’s growing defence commitments, highlighting the UK’s decision to provide more military aid to Ukraine this year than ever before and to significantly increase defence spending.

“We are already one of the biggest spenders in NATO, and now we are going much further, delivering Britain’s biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War,” he said, underlining the UK’s push to “rebalance the transatlantic alliance” and “make us all stronger.”

This announcement aligns with Trump’s repeated calls for European nations to take on greater responsibility for their own security, a stance he reaffirmed during the Oval Office meeting.

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
49 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David
David
1 day ago

Ukraine should have 250k troops and an assortment of kit. Their air force should be then have a meaningful number of F16s and Mirage 2000. They will have lots of domestic drones, rocket and tube artillery. They will have combat hardened units. But rotating an RAF squadron to police Ukraine is going to take 50% of the RAF strength long term. A few thousand troops will need M270 as we have no spare Archer if we are still doing Estonia. Army air corps, and every branch will be overstretched. Unless France, Germany and Poland are going to build a meaningful… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B
1 day ago
Reply to  David

Russian separatists will do what they are told by Putin – stay quiet.

The UK might be leading this operation but all our NATO allies will be backing us up. Including the Americans – after Trump has finished ‘negotiating’ he will need to protect his investment.

If you were Putin you would probably be wishing the war had never started. His best option is to save a little face and get out now.

Ulya
Ulya
1 day ago
Reply to  Mark B

Bless. Send your people

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Mark B

A rational person would agree.

Putin’s drivers are more of Trumpian reality that your or my reality.

Putin is also from the KGB where having the pot bubbling a little is a good idea. So the Green/Grey Men will start up and he will lie, as he always does, shrug his shoulders and say it is down to an unhappy population.

Chris
Chris
1 day ago

It’s a bad idea. No good outcomes.

Start a major peer conflict with Russia for some dirt in Ukraine. Sounds cool until the body bags start rolling in. No thanks.

Matt
Matt
1 day ago
Reply to  Chris

I don’t think we’re planning to start it…

David
David
1 day ago

Some of the commentary on the uptick in defence spending has highlighted that further cuts to the Armed Forces (some say substantial cuts) will happen as a result of the upcoming SDR, before the increase in spending starts in 2027. The point they make is that we will be even further depleted by 2027 and the increase won’t get us back to where we are today – at least in the short term.

….you just can’t make this stuff up!!

Redshift
Redshift
1 day ago
Reply to  David

You can and you just did!

David
David
1 day ago

How many aircraft and troops is ‘General Starmer’ going to commit??? Has no-one told him how bare the cupboard really is??

Redshift
Redshift
1 day ago
Reply to  David

Rishi, Boris, Liz, Theresa and David must surely have told him what they had done?

James
James
23 hours ago
Reply to  Redshift

……Brown and Blair will have left a note for the future to inform they have a vision of what it is now.

Redshift
Redshift
1 day ago
Reply to  David

So you believe that any UK Prime Minister Should be belittled for actually doing his job?

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 day ago

My challenge to those who say this is a bad idea, or even a good idea, is what is the alternative or best response. Sometimes in life all you get are bad opinions or a load of shite and death to pick from. So the questions in this pile of shit are. 1) if it’s not the UKs job to be involved in securing peace whose job is it ? 2) if it’s no one’s job or no one steps up who secures peace in Ukraine ? 3) if Ukraine losses ( and in the end it probably will) what… Read more »

Last edited 1 day ago by Jonathan
Jon
Jon
1 day ago
Reply to  Jonathan

1&2) You assume that peace at any price is a good thing. It isn’t. So maybe it shouldn’t be secured. 3) Peace now is a Ukraine loss. Russia will rearm and restart faster if the war stops now than if they are fought to exhaustion as the Soviets were in Afghanistan. 4) I think he’ll have another go at Georgia. Moldova will be weakened, but he won’t do more than chip away at the Baltics until Xi is ready to attack Taiwan. I might be wrong there. I know others have suggested he’ll do a Donbas in Estonia or Latvia… Read more »

Pleiades
Pleiades
1 day ago
Reply to  Jon

Good post 👌🏾

Chris
Chris
1 day ago
Reply to  Jon

Peace now is not a Ukraine loss. Total false narrative. Ukraine is LOSING right now. It’s going to accelerate as the manpower runs shorter.

Peace now is the only chance Ukraine has at anything resembling a victory.

Tomartyr
Tomartyr
1 day ago
Reply to  Chris

Considering the majority of Russian KIAs are 45+ I’d say the manpower shortage is not in their favour.

Last edited 1 day ago by Tomartyr
Jon
Jon
1 day ago
Reply to  Chris

Scorched Earth always looks like a loss, until it doesn’t. The Donbas is Ukraine’s Karalia, except far bigger. You never win against Russia by giving up. Slava Ukraini.

Last edited 1 day ago by Jon
FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 day ago
Reply to  Jon

Jon,
Largely concur w/ your assessment, especially re probable future RU intentions/campaigns, as defined in point 4. Would counsel a healthy level of caution/scepticism in reliance upon a US backstop for an European peacekeeping force in UKR, for the duration of this administration. Assume that any force may have to execute a fighting withdrawl from UKR, utilizing only self-generated capabilities, while under significant engagement. Essentially, a modern equivalent of the BEF withdrawal/evacuation during the Fall of France.

Jon
Jon
1 day ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Trump want Europe to pay to secure him his mineral rights. I do wonder how our politicians are not more skeptical.

Marky.
Marky.
1 day ago

How come we left the EU, but we’re still defending it, still paying into it when EU countries military just polish their boots and clean their weapons.
How many helped us in the Falklands war?……………….none!
Don’t forget, our troops can only stay for 90 days and not return for another 90 days.

Last edited 1 day ago by Marky.
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 day ago
Reply to  Marky.

NATO and the EU are different things.
France.
EU members are mostly close allies of the UK whether we are part of that club or not.

Frank62
Frank62
1 day ago
Reply to  Marky.

France helped us by not giving any further support on Agentine’s Exocets & helping us determine what stockpile the Arg’s had. NATO is the defence treaty, not the EU.

Keith Mcmaugh
Keith Mcmaugh
1 day ago
Reply to  Marky.

Marky, of what strategic importance is Falklands? How much did the war costs? Those are very expensive sheep on the island, located no where.

Matt
Matt
1 day ago
Reply to  Keith Mcmaugh

They give us a say in what happens in the Antarctic. Worth every penny.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Marky.

I think we will demand that Germany pays towards the nuclear umbrella.

Micron certainly wants that and PANG paid for.

Redshift
Redshift
1 day ago

Our nuclear weapons are of a purely strategic nature, whereas France still maintains a more all round force with air dropped munitions. Our deterrent isn’t quite as suitable as Frances for providing an “umbrella”.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  Redshift

I agree.

We urgently need to build some free fall bombs etc

We have the ability and the tech to do that – quite easily. Actually it wouldn’t be that expensive either as the main budgetary problem is having the facilities in the first place that are not used to anything like capacity.

The nuclear tipped air launch is something that is a bit harder as we don’t really want to put it on Storm Shadow.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
1 day ago

Nuclear FC/ASW?
Or would a separate missile be more useful, perhaps an air launched ballistic type?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 day ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

The issue is the signature confusion argument.

You don’t want the other side to think your conventional missile launch is a nuclear one?

That was the whole reason that the nuclear tipped TLAM were retired.

That assumes that the Russian can tell the difference between a missile launch and a volcano which I am dubious about.

Also there is a lot more effort in disguising a nuclear tipped missile, because of budget, than a conventional one. As well as it generally bing much faster as per the French triad.

Paul T
Paul T
15 hours ago

Russia is surprisingly ahead of the game in that respect – the first use of the Oreshnik Missile was pre announced/pre warned to avoid any over reactions.

Redshift
Redshift
1 day ago
Reply to  Marky.

You are, in a simple minded Brexiteer fashion, confusing the EU with NATO and Europe.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 day ago

Starmer acts has if the UK has huge armed forces ? Does he have any idea the size of the British Army . Now he’s willing to take care of Ukrainian air space? How many Typhoon SQNs do we have .Honestly were is the man coming from 🙄 yes by all means help Ukraine but British boots on the ground and our RAF over there sky’s .Sorry it’s a no from me .Putin won’t be able resist having another go. However nice of Trump to say British Troops know how to look after themselves ,true but does he know our… Read more »

Matt
Matt
1 day ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Then what do we have armed forces for, if its not to further our foreign and security policy?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 day ago
Reply to  Matt

I hear you. The issue is, especially regards the British Army, is the never ending “double hatting” The latest NATO plan doing the rounds was that NATO wants 2 ” Strategic Reserve Corps” one of them British. So 1 and 3 Divisions, hopefully in time repaired with the missing CS CSS. I’d pointed this problem out the other month when the DS was grandstanding about committing a Brigade to Estonia. A reserve committed is no reserve. Our sole warfighting Division, 3 UK, already has forces deployed in Estonia to maintain the enduring BG there. So is that plan, one which… Read more »

Last edited 1 day ago by Daniele Mandelli
Matt
Matt
1 day ago

Yes, I don’t see any land contribution from us being much more than a token contribution, at least in the short term. But we shall need to play to our strengths with air and naval contributions. I wonder if anyone on here knows how the Montreux Convention will apply to non-Black Sea state warships deployed there in a peace support role, especially if it kicks off. Depends how the Turks feel about it, I suppose.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 day ago
Reply to  Matt

That convention was discussed by a few posters here last year, and they seemed to know what they were on about.
Maybe they’ll see this and advise.

Andrew D
Andrew D
17 hours ago

With you on that Conservative party Cut on 2010 👍

Frank62
Frank62
1 day ago
Reply to  Andrew D

British Troops know how to look after themselves but HMGs for decades have been clueless how to look after the forces & how to maintain a credible conventional force & deterrent. It’s almost like all those Chinese & Russian kickbacks have worked a treat for them.

Cripes
Cripes
23 hours ago
Reply to  Andrew D

I’m sure that the PM will have been advised firmly by the Chiefs of Staff how many troops and aircraft we can provide.

Starmer and Macron are doing the right thing in encouraging NATO Europe to put down a marker for Ukraine’s post-war independence. If the rest of Europe sits this one out, then it will be a very small and thin monitoring force.

If the UK and French initiative is supported by troops from the other 28 NATO/E members, we could get close to the troop numbers needed.

Frank62
Frank62
1 day ago

Not that we have a lot we can send.

If Putin can deploy N Koreans, then he has no veto on NATO troopps or simply any willing European troops fighting alongside UKR. I’d love to see aircover for UKR. The only way Putin would back down is when faced with might.

Paul T
Paul T
16 hours ago
Reply to  Frank62

You do know that Russia has used/deployed Troops from outside Russia since this War began ?. Its nothing new.

Keith Mcmaugh
Keith Mcmaugh
1 day ago

The US embrace of Putin is very concerning and confusing. US, Israel and Russia voted against the UN resolution to condemn Russia. At least China abstain.? So, a new world order? Does it not appear that US has switched over to the other side? My low pay scale don’t allow me to make these decisions. Over to you.

Chris
Chris
1 day ago
Reply to  Keith Mcmaugh

Getting locked into another Cold War with Russia isn’t in the US or even western Europe’s interest.

The US is trying to free itself from Europe infighting to pivot to Asia.

Redshift
Redshift
1 day ago
Reply to  Chris

But apparently it is in Russia’s interest or we wouldn’t actually be here would we?

James
James
23 hours ago
Reply to  Keith Mcmaugh

Trump wants money back, access to the mineral wealth whilst Europe pays the costs of securing the country and mines for extraction, win win for America.

Micki
Micki
1 day ago

In practice there are no troops or aircraft to send mr Starmer.

Lord of war
Lord of war
14 hours ago

Plot twist. After all the media hype, most of europe just tell the leaders to fight their own war. 😮 Result. War is over in minutes, life carries on, no one gets hurt, no recovery is needed, the corrupt politicians of Europe get traded for other corrupt politicians, Just like in any and every election. But wait… theres more! All the infrastructure both physical and economic is untouched and intact. Business as usual. REMEMBER FOLKS All wars end when politicans are forced to fight it themselves. I kind of wonder if we just let the enemy have the ones who… Read more »

John
John
20 seconds ago
Reply to  Lord of war

Poetry that.