The United Kingdom will provide Ukraine with 150,000 drones and more than 350 air defence missiles and radars in a £752 million package funded from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, the Defence Secretary Dan Jarvis has announced in Brussels, the Ministry of Defence has said.
The package, drawn from the United Kingdom’s £2.26 billion Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration loan to Ukraine, will deliver 150,000 Ukrainian-produced drones by the end of the year, along with more than 350 air defence missiles and radars, including Lightweight Multirole Missiles and ground-based radar systems, by the end of 2026. The loan is backed by the proceeds from frozen Russian sovereign assets, a mechanism the Chancellor set out last year that allows Moscow’s own immobilised money to help pay for Ukraine’s defence.
The air defence element is aimed squarely at the threat that has dominated Ukraine’s skies, with the Ministry of Defence saying that Putin “continues his barbaric air attacks on civilian targets” and that radars and missiles are critical to defending the country, as the package seeks to improve protection against Russia’s indiscriminate missile and drone strikes while also supporting Ukraine’s own defence industry.
The support was announced by Jarvis at his first NATO Defence Ministers’ meeting, where he also co-chaired the Ukraine Defence Contact Group alongside his German counterpart Boris Pistorius, the gathering of nearly 50 nations that, meeting for the 35th time, focuses on Ukraine’s urgent battlefield needs and on sustaining long-term military support. Jarvis met President Volodymyr Zelensky, who attended the meeting, to discuss what the department described as the United Kingdom’s unwavering support.
Jarvis said it was “a privilege” to attend his first NATO Defence Ministers’ meeting and to “host the vital Ukraine Defence Contact Group with Germany”. He added that “for 75 years, NATO has been the cornerstone of the UK’s security”, and that his priorities were “to strengthen the alliance’s deterrence and defence” and to continue supporting Ukraine “as they defend their nation against Russia’s brutal war of aggression”. The package of drones, air defence missiles and radars would, he said, “help to protect innocent Ukrainian people from Putin’s barrage of drones and missiles”, and he called it “an honour to welcome President Zelensky to this important meeting”.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, said the funding was “helping deliver the vital military equipment Ukraine needs” as it defended itself “against Russia’s unprovoked war”, describing British support as “steadfast”. She said she was “proud that we are providing vital support” and that the government would “continue to do all we can to keep pressure on Russia”.
Jarvis also confirmed that Britain is taking command of the Multinational Force for Ukraine headquarters, with Major General Tom Bateman due to assume command next month in the rank of Lieutenant General, leading the multinational team that coordinates support to Ukraine and is preparing for the long-term regeneration of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the event of a peace deal. Bateman, most recently the Standing Joint Force Commander, has been leading the headquarters’ planning on the recovery and regeneration of Ukraine’s forces, working with counterparts in Ukraine, France and other contributing nations.
Having met counterparts including the United States, France, Germany, Ukraine, Norway, Estonia, Denmark and Finland during the day, Jarvis agreed with Germany and Norway to deepen cooperation on anti-submarine warfare in the High North and the Atlantic, where all three operate modern submarine-hunting frigates and P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, a nod to the growing concern over Russian submarine activity off NATO’s northern flank.












Would it be a stretch too far for us to fund our military from these ‘frozen assets’? Asking for a friend.
But at the moment the war is in Ukraine. And they are doing a bloody good job of making the Russians lives hell.
Not just Ukraine, the Russians are mapping our infrastructure over 15000 cyber attacks and using proxies to struck out such as arson attacks in the UK.
And we have the intelligence services to deal with that threat. Russia knows it doesn’t have a hope in hells chance in a conventional military campaign.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting…
following website—.,…..,.,.,.,.,.,.,.—>>> PAYAtHOME1.COM
I guess that was my point. We know the Russians are involved in all sorts of nefarious activities with the sole intention of challenging our nations resolve. So if the gloves are off, why cant we fight fire with fire and hit them where it really hurts. Money is the only thing keeping Putins quest alive, if he has no intention of ceasing his ambitions surely its not unreasonable for us to reappropriate some of these funds into our own national areas of interest. I doubt any of the businesses that pulled out of Russia following their invasion have seen a penny in compensation for loss of assets.
Andy,
I heard that the majority of leased commercial aviation, Boeing, Airbus, were the property of a financial institution based in the Republic of Ireland, so struggling to do anything about it nationally rather reliant on EU sanctions to get any traction. Unlikely that they will ever get those aircraft back and if they did, the absence of a maintenance record to the OEM standards means a write off as no other operator would want them.
On your key point, the use of interest from frozen assets is a subsidy to UK Defence spending that would otherwise be spent to uphold the PURL and 100 Years UA/UK collaboration agreement.
To go further would require change to the Anti Money Laundering regulations to designate terrorist Money as proceeds of crime so subject to confiscation. Currently the AML regulations are focused against criminal endeavour and do enable confiscation of the proceeds of crime.
I think that changevis a low hanging fruit aka an original mistake in AML regulations since terrorists are criminals regardless of their business transactions. Obviously many are well funded by bad actors up to state level.
So it should be easy to get AML regulations improved as no politician, bank, or government wants to enable terrorism other than the aggressors.
Having confiscated the proceeds of crime each government is free to spend in the national interest, which is firstly, Defence.
Longfrb,
Hmmm … EU merely needs to amend AML regulations? Based upon past track record, willing to hazard a guess re probable timeframe? Decade? End of 21st century? Current geological epoch? 🤔😉
Given the mood music coming from EU both leadership and diplomatic I’m more optimistic that member states who control their own AML regulations will be willing to extend the scope from criminals to terrorists given the public good of a cleaner financial system. That aligns with Eurozone intentions to have a more credible zone with less corruption which is a long term frog boiling effort..
Banks may object initially believing that they have passed stress tests and capital adequacy so should be allowed to knowingly take higher risk and reward decisions. However the Belgian banks holding the majority of the frozen $300Bn do need a way out of their conundrum and banking generally needs every reputational boost they can get. Being able to say politicians made us do this, and the whole of Europe is the same, would be a handy release.
In the longer view, even bankers can see that there’s plenty of opportunities without the proceeds of crime or terrorism.
So I suspect that it is the national governments who need private funding to function who will need to grow a pair, and G7+ or Ramstein are good fora for them to go all in for the benefit of Ukraine, their nation and Europe as people that really act against terrorism..
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,..,.,,,,,,.,,,,,.,.—>> LIVEJOB1.COM
Well we have handed Ukraine 18 billion since the wars start, 3 billion now comes from the defence budget annually. Wouldn’t it be nice to see 18 billion of Russian assets folded into the defence budget. We all know that will never happen.
The ruzzian central bank said $26Bn is frozen in UK, while $18.4Bn of oligarchs cash is estimated in UK.
So a change to AML regulations across Europe is overdue and would be of the correct order of magnitude to cover support and reconstruction though not sufficient for the EU estimated $600Bn for Ukrainian reconstruction.
A generational reparation tax will be required for the whole sum, and that’s very uncertain to happen..
The best security guarantees are Ukrainian weapons made by Ukraine and ITAR free so only Ukraine decides how they use them.
Deutschland, Czechia and Great Britain have been investing and collaborating with Ukraine to design, build, test, and improve long range precision fires.
Flamingo go go 🦩🔥🦩🔥🦩
A refinery a day keeps the orcZ away
Slava Ukrainia 🇺🇦 Heroyam Slava
👍
“A refinery a day keeps the OrcZ away.” 😂😁👍👍
In the end of the day sovereignty in regards to defence matters a lot more than having the very best money can buy or even the cheapest. Having the most you can of an adequate capability that you control has alway been a war winning combination.
During WW2 German assests were frozen and returned at the end of the war. It might be emotionally satisfying but there’s the risk that UK owned assets can be sized by hostile governments down the line. Seeing that the UK owns 13.5 trillion in assests abroad that get very expensive very quickly
I think top honchos in your govt has considered that, that’s the reason they are using interest rather than proceeds of sale of those assets.
long wait for russia to be at a point to return assets, germany surrendered and west germany became part of nato.
This, and the U.K. seizing Russian assets would send a red flag to any other country that their assets might be seized should they do something the U.K. government dislikes. Ultimately it would damage the U.K. to send such a message.
Keeping terrorist funds away from UK financial sector is both a local public good to increase confidence in UK finance and a global good to reduce terrorism. It’s not about what UK government likes rather about due diligence on the source of funding and it’s destination, excluding all sanctioned entities as intended. AML regulations already exist to do this against crime and terrorism is also a crime, so should be included.
Some people say that London is a capital of money laundering, especially ruzzian money, but I couldn’t possibly comment..
You clearly don’t comprehend the difference between sovereign assets (ie those belonging to the Russian Government) and the assets of foreign citizens (ie Russian oligarchs, mafioso, etc). Which is unfortunate, because we’re you able to grasp this simple concept then you’d understand that these are treated differently under international law, with the seizure of sovereign assets being regarded as a red line. This is the case even when the assets are simply transiting through a country as part of a payment process; such as the situation with Russian assets going through Swift in Belgium.
RS,
Hmmm … excellent point. Perhaps governments and private industry should exercise judgement when deciding where to invest. 🤔
Agree the big difference between a western liberal democracy and any old authoritarian is that a western democracy follows the rule of law… the rule of law ( and international rule of law has always been weaker than national ) is essentially the thing that protects use from chaos.
Banking is full of dirty money despite Anti Money Laundering regulations mainly criminals so the Belgian banks have nothing to fear for clean money investment.
The existing AML regulations need change to recognise that a terrorist state controlled by war criminals is in the scope of AML for confiscation of the proceeds of crime.
Thus all the bankers can say to investors we can help with clean money just out of our control if you commit terrorist acts. Banks are used to regulations so it’s not a stretch for them.
End result is that terrorists everywhere loose access to international banking. Kaputin looses his $300Bn capital. The Belgian government sends it to EU for funding PURL and reconstruction of Ukraine.
All this needs is for EU member states to enact change to existing AML laws that they all have.
An easy topic for the Ukraine Contact Group.
Andy, isn’t that what this article is about?
Graham, the Extraordinary Loan Facility is a contingency to uphold UK commitments to support Ukraine and not the ordinary budget of the Ministry of Defence. So a bit of a nit-pick difference yet important from a legal perspective.
Please see my responses above on AML regulations.
labour oddly freeing up russian £££ now, that’s been frozen for some time. could be argued it should be shipped directly to ukraine they have paid blood
I think your instincts are good. It would be a stretch.
If Russia had declared war on NATO then maybe
Can we say that Dan Jarvis in his first week in the job has got an extra £752 million package out of HMT?
A very positive first week id say 👍
Given the pace of government it would be fairer to credit his predecessor who has a long record of supporting Ukraine..
Regardless of personnel, this is great support from UK.
A good response to red navy and shadow fleet misdemeanours in the English Channel / La Manche.
#vpdfo #FDJT #NAFO69
Personally I would credit Ben Wallace who actually seemed to know his business.
He was there shouting from the rooftops that Russia were about to invade Ukraine and Labour were babbling on about parties and birthday cake.
Part of me, just a little part, hopes that Jarvis told Hesketh he’s just a Stab Hat.
Given SecWar record at the previous Munich Summit it’s unlikely his reception is anything more than the minimum that diplomacy requires for his position, not persona.
someone needs to say something to hesketh, but whilst we have hollowed out military and ‘need’ america we can’t
We have diplomats at the Foreign Office to deal with things like this.
With all these LMM’s to Ukraine the unit cost must be getting pretty sharp and the UK can take advantage of this for its own stocks.
It’s been said before but a “navalised” Rapid Sentry could be a goer and for exports. A UK SeaRAM/Mistral equivalent with multiple sizes, x1, x2, x3, 2×3, 2×4, 2×6.
And on the other side eqiup those 34 army wild cats with LMM.. and role them as anti drone air superiority platforms.
It is rather a shame that everything is predicated on the PIP, because the economies of scale prices must be immense.
As to the DefSec, ROYAL over PARA any day.
The chutzpah of perfidious albion, using stolen money to buy the knive to punish the victim
so much for rodney’s ‘rules based international order’ this is expropriation under international law, which is why the EU backed of from just stealing the assets in their entirety
ultimately the EU will have to account to russia for this, and most likely the UK as well
Terrorism is a crime so confiscation of the proceeds of crime should apply to all criminals, including terrorists. Without funding, their harm is reduced, so a general public good in all nations.
international assets are subject to international law, so they can only be frozen, or confiscated, only under international law, so can you refer us all to the evidence supporting this action under international law, (clue: it’s not evidenced by nation states undividually, or in conceert with allies, nor by the people they’ve gas lighted) ?
Not correct. Deposits are made into the jurisdiction of the recipient institution so are subject to national law, including any international law that the nation has chosen to recognise usually through treaties or similar.
So deposits into Belgian banks are subject to UN, EU, and Belgian law because Belgium is recognised by the UN, is a member of the EU and a sovereign nation.
Any depositor in a Belgian bank has chosen yo accept their Terms and Conditions that include Belgian jurisdiction. Recognition of US and EU sanctions is a matter for the Belgian government and unsurprisingly they do.
Depositors who aren’t criminals, including terrorists, have nothing to fear from the rule based order of law.
so can you identify the clauses which allow assets to be frozen/confiscated, because all the evidence is belgium refused to allow confiscation because they were afraid they’d be held accountable, by russia, under internatioanl law ?
No, I’m not a Belgian lawyer.
The UK Sentencing Council provide guidance on AML regulations (Proceeds of Crime Act 2002) including Confiscation Orders:
sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/money-laundering/
Each sovereign nation has it’s own laws on AML including Belgium so it’s a reasonable assumption that Proceeds of Crime law applies. Of course cowards will do nothing whenever given the chance..
Of course ruzzians have no jurisdiction in Belgium which is a sovereign nation cf UN Charter Article 2 Sovereignty, so it doesn’t matter what they think about AML regulations.
So your talking bullsh then, your just making up a story to fit your version of reality ?