The UK government has reaffirmed its commitment to supporting Ukraine’s maritime security and its long-term path to NATO membership, according to Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Defence Luke Pollard, who addressed questions in the House of Commons on 27 February 2025.
In response to a question from Labour MP Johanna Baxter, Pollard outlined the UK’s ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of navigation and the protection of trade in the Black and Azov Seas. He stated:
“We are working with Ukraine and international partners to secure commercial shipping and shipping routes in the Black Sea, including Ukraine’s maritime corridor. The 100 Year Partnership will help with this endeavour through the provision of training and equipment to Ukraine, to prevent and deter Russian attacks.”
The UK-Ukraine 100-Year Partnership Declaration, signed last year, has reinforced London’s commitment to upholding freedom of navigation in the Black Sea. The agreement also strengthens Ukraine’s maritime forces, ensuring they can counter Russian threats and safeguard vital shipping lanes.
Pollard further highlighted the UK’s leadership role, stating:
“The UK co-leads the maritime capability coalition with Norway and this work supports Ukraine’s maritime capabilities now and in the future.”
This coalition is part of wider international efforts to ensure Ukraine has the naval infrastructure and capability to protect its territorial waters and economic interests. Given the importance of grain exports and other trade passing through the Black Sea, securing these routes remains a strategic priority for both Kyiv and its allies.
On the issue of Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, Baxter asked what assessment the government had made regarding Kyiv’s potential accession to the alliance. Pollard confirmed that NATO remains committed to Ukraine’s membership, stating:
“NATO made a long-term commitment to Ukraine and has been clear that Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. The Prime Minister has reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to Ukraine’s irreversible path to NATO membership, as agreed by all Allies at the Washington Summit.”
Despite this clear political support, the UK and its allies recognise that accession is a long-term process. Pollard noted that, for now, the focus remains on ensuring Ukraine’s battlefield success and strengthening its negotiating position in any potential future peace talks:
“That is a process that will take time, and for now our priority is to make sure Ukraine is in the strongest possible position on the battlefield and in any potential negotiations to come.”
Fully agree that Ukraine should be in NATO.
They’ve more than earned it, and it’s the only way to guarantee Ukraine’s safety for future and prevent another war, especially one that might end up embroiling all of Europe in future.
Anything less is just kowtowing to Putin. Giving up on Ukraine, throwing them under Russia’s bus, doesn’t bring about peace. At best it kicks the can of war down the road. Otherwise, Russia will rearm and have another go in 5 years. 10 tops.
If Trump manages to do what many fear, and find a way to remain in power after his term is up – or another Trump ally e.g. JD Vance becomes the next POTUS, then it’ll likely happen sooner than later.
A pity that Ukraine did not join NATO many years ago, ie in the aftermath of Russia’s seizure of Crimea or even years before that. Now accession would be blocked by several NATO members including USA and Hungary.
[I would put money on Vance being the next POTUS].
I see Rachel Reeves has changed the remit of the new UK national wealth fund to allow it to invest in defence as well as infrastructure.
As far as I understand it the change allows for the fund to invest in defence industry, so investing in UK defence contractors. I assume to build up infrastructure and provide research funding.
Yes, the govt growth agenda for the economy will have less investment in net zero and more on defence industries.
NATO was setup to defend against an aggressive Russia… so yes it should join NATO. But we all know that won’t happen. If Vance gets in at the next election he will probably demand that Ukraine return any Russian territory it still holds. If the Democrats get in Russia will attack Ukraine again with a rebuilt military. But seeing what’s happened in a few weeks of Trump… who knows what could happen – probably something completely unexpected.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, Ukraine’s NATO membership was always a non-starter. It is certainly dead now.
Their only hope is if Europe steps up to the plate and fast. That means huge investment across the continent so that we can stand on our own, while also being able to assist allies.
That won’t happen right now as European leaders still hope the US will see sense. I can’t see a lot of that over the pond right now. Republicans have been quick to support Trump and Vance.
The other way is if Ukraine is admitted to the EU. Then they would get a security guarantee.
The US has no say in EU admission.
Why would EU membership come with a security guarantee? It is not a military / defence alliance.
Isn’t that precisely what is happening? The UK declined to join the Treaty of Rome. Seems to me that, in reaction to adversarial forces in the East and from the US across the Atlantic, we are seeing EU version 2 coming into being with UK and Ukraine included.
Article 47.2, European defence clause
“ If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power”
Added at Treaty of Lisbon
Hi Gary would not favor this option. This country is looking for a large région of Ukraine. This is problematic. The second issue pays in the way EU works. The functionning of EU is ill suited for the adhedision of member states with issues. Economically, it would work. But militarily, having a large border with a war looming, or in war, is a serious challenge. Who will protect it and how? If we are deal, it is an issue. If we are strong, it is an issue against. Reason is you would put 2 nuclear power in contact. One of the two has full control of média. The other one as freedom of speech and is perméable to propaganda. Not the same strength. After that, even if we don’t like Russia, le border is a vast plain. Un défendable without a large armé ready… on both sides of the border. A liability for both. So… I think we can maintain peace keeping troops, mantain garrison and fighter fleet, but after that, we have to carefully measure what we do. Because even if I don’t like Russia, they will have to protect their cities, at low cost, or it will destroy their country. Just look at the map. Their are things that can be done, other that must be carrefully looked upon. Imagine we would station Rafale in Finland one second, what it would mean for Russian major sea base in the White sea or for Saint Petersbourg… Very easy, right. The same vulnerability exists for Moscow from Ukraine. The manœuvre force must exist, long rang striking missiles and aire force must exists… manœuvre with 300 000 soldiers must be prepared to create conditions for a lasting peace. Stationning all of them in Ukraine may be not so wise.
I do think it is quite ludicrous to suggest Ukraine should join NATO at the point the US is stepping away from it. There are multiple reasons why they were still at least a decade away from NATO membership before the war.
The Russians, righly or wrongly, have suggested that Ukranian NATO membership is a big no. And they invaded for that reason among others. They are a paranoid nation and so we need to deal carefully with this superpower in decline that has the potential to lash out with nuclear weapons, at a time when the rest of Europe is completely unprepared to fight even a conventional war.
My plan would be, end the war with some concessions from both sides (probably would need Ukraine to surrender territory in ethnic Russian majority Eastern regions). Admit Ukraine to the EU and watch it’s economy flourish (which Russia says it would be OK with). Arm Ukraine to the teeth so that they can defend themselves properly in any future conflict, and not always be on the back foot.
A large standing army with a huge reserve. Slowly transition to more efficient single type fleets (keep the rest in reserve) e.g. Leopard 2 tanks, F16 fighter jets etc. Artillery and IFVs might take a bit longer to rationalise. Also build up large reserves of ammunition, missiles etc. Remove restrictions on the use of things like cruise missiles.
In the longer term maybe transition to European origin equipment if American support remains questionable.
Ukraine’s biggest challenge will be rebuilding half of the country during a demographic crisis.
Have fun getting London nuked over some Eastern European corn fields.
Really sound thinking guys. Calling Putin “bad guy” or whatever doesn’t change anything. His (large) country gets a vote too.
Annnd Chris the “American” reveals himself to be just another Moscow troll.
Oh come on Chris, everyone knows that Russia is now a busted flush, economically and militarily. It is also a busted flush politically, held together by repression, fake elections, elimination of opponents, a heavy state police , all under the heavy hand of spadefuls of crude state propaganda.
All backed by the paper threat of nuclear weapons, which are old verging on obsolete and poorly maintained.
Putin’s autocracy/kleptokracy is built on foundations of sand and would not withstand a serious military challenge from Europe, let alone NATO. I think we are inevitably moving to that big test, better get your tin hat on.
Does everyone know that? Just like everyone knew about the “ghost of Kiev” and the “summer offensive” Europe is drunk on western propaganda. Russia is still fighting a limited war, no where near war time conscription levels or demographic collapse. Thinking you are going to defeat Putin by calling him names, labeling Russia as “weak” and pulling Ukraines war into NATO’s house is seriously poor judgment. Europe is trying to sign the USA up for a war with Russia. Turning down peace at this junction makes no other logical sense.
47,000 Ukrainian soldiers died last month, does everyone know that?
It’s that paper threat and the fossil fuels that have allowed Russia to be all Russian for the last decade (or more). Europe hasn’t divested (or even close to) itself from those fuels.
“We could steamroller them as long as they don’t turn to instant sunshine and don’t destroy their own oil and gas works and what rises after their defeat isn’t worse and we can keep full accounting of all their NCBR weapons.” Isn’t the cast iron flex we like to think, otherwise we’d have probably done it by now. Then there’s the thought of millions of Russian “refugees”…
As Chris said, Russia gets a vote, no matter how much we prefer they didn’t.
It’s that paper threat and the fossil fuels that have allowed Russia to be all Russian for the last decade (or more). Europe hasn’t divested (or even close to) itself from those fuels.
“We could steamroller them as long as they don’t turn to instant sunshine and don’t destroy their own oil and gas works and what rises after their defeat isn’t worse and we can keep full accounting of all their NCBR weapons.” Isn’t the cast iron flex we like to think, otherwise we’d have probably done it by now. Then there’s the practicalities of millions of displaced Russians…
As Chris said, Russia gets a vote, no matter how much we prefer they didn’t.
but the UK already gave assurances to russia decades ago that NATO would not spread eastwards
is this because we have a compulsive liar as PM ?