During a parliamentary session, Olly Glover, Liberal Democrat MP for Didcot and Wantage, raised concerns about potential shifts in US military aid to Ukraine under President-elect Trump and called for stronger European efforts to support Ukraine.
Glover asked, “Given that President-elect Trump has been at best ambivalent towards maintaining current levels of US military aid to Ukraine, we must redouble European efforts to support Ukraine. What further discussions does the Minister plan with European allies to collectively strengthen the provision of arms and resources to Ukraine, including through the potential use of seized Russian Central Bank assets?”
Responding, Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard reiterated the UK Government’s unwavering support for Ukraine. “We have laid out clearly that this Government will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes,” Pollard said.
He highlighted the UK’s financial commitment, stating, “That means committing £3 billion a year, as we have done, to make sure that the Ukrainians have the equipment and ammunition they need to stay in the fight.”
Pollard also mentioned the UK’s role in rallying NATO allies to provide coordinated support, adding, “We are taking that across the NATO alliance to all NATO members, and we will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.”
The exchange underscores the UK’s commitment to ensuring continued aid to Ukraine, particularly in light of potential changes in US policy, while seeking to strengthen collaborative efforts with European and NATO allies.
Later in the session, Defence Secretary John Healey provided an update on the UK’s support for Ukraine and its response to wider Russian aggression, as the conflict enters a critical phase in 2025.
Harpreet Uppal, Labour MP for Huddersfield, asked about steps to increase military assistance to Ukraine. Healey described 2025 as pivotal in the conflict, stating, “This is day 1,049 of Russia’s brutal, illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and 2025 will be the critical year in the conflict.”
He outlined the government’s focus on enhancing Ukraine’s battlefield position and defence capabilities, explaining, “Throughout 2025, we will develop UK training, strengthen defence industrial co-operation, increase pressure with allies on Russia, and step up and speed up military aid to Ukraine.”
Uppal welcomed the announcement of £225 million in new military aid but raised concerns about the broader security threat posed by Russia’s shadow fleet, particularly following the reported sabotage of an undersea cable in the Baltic. In response, Healey highlighted the activation of an advanced UK-led reaction system by the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF), designed to monitor Russian activities.
He stated, “For the first time, the joint expeditionary force—the JEF—has activated an advanced UK-led reaction system to track potential threats to undersea infrastructure and to monitor the movements of the Russian shadow fleet. That will be run out of the standing joint force headquarters at Northwood.”
Dr Andrew Murrison, Conservative MP for South West Wiltshire, questioned the UK’s broader aims, asking whether it supports Ukraine’s fight to restore its internationally recognised borders or accepts the possibility of a de facto border excluding Donbas and Crimea.
Healey replied that decisions on negotiations lie with Ukraine. “It is the Ukrainians who are fighting; it is the Ukrainians who decide when to start talking; and it is for the Ukrainians to decide on what terms they may start talking,” he said.
He added that the UK’s role is to support Ukraine both in combat and at any potential negotiations.
Healey also acknowledged the wider implications of Russian aggression, stating that incidents such as the Baltic undersea cable damage highlight threats beyond Ukraine. The activation of the JEF’s advanced reaction system represents a step towards addressing hybrid threats in cooperation with European allies.
Given the increasing defence budgets in Europe and the increasing desire from non NATO western aligned countries to set an example to China I just can’t see Ukraine funding dropping off even if the US pulls funding. Spread across other NATO members and Japan and Australia the amount of real funding coming from the USA is fairly small. Much of the headline $60 billion figure is used to purchase replacement equipment for the US military. Much cheaper to keep the Ukrainian wood chipper going than to let the Russians win something and let the CCP think they get start changing there boarders as they like.
The US was vital in the early days having the largest stock piles but as time goes on its production capacity and finance that the Ukrainians need to stay in the game, especially as their own weapons industry ramps up.
That “Ukrainian wood chipper” also happens to be chewing up Ukrainian manpower, which already Ukraine’s main problem.
If US support is no longer part of the equation, then Europe – never mind the UK alone – has almost no ability to sustain Ukraine. It simply does not have the armament production, nor the political will for that matter, to sustain Ukraine in the long-term. Moreover, the UK and France only possess a minimum nuclear deterrent, which in practical terms is too small to be extended to other states – meaning that Russia would have complete escalation dominance.
Whatever pretending the UK government is engaged in at the moment (and it is really all about CONTINUOUS pretending) if the US is out of this, all that is left is negotiation with Russia. Everthing awaits the US position after Jan 20.
Sadly you are correct because not many nations in Europe including the U.K. are prepared to pay in full for its own defence without the support of the US. We are delusional if we think otherwise.
The only benefit of Mr Trump selling out the Ukrainians is maybe this will make our political class finally wake up that we have lived off our peace dividend far too long.
All the same arguments were used in 2022 but Europe stepped up. Europe has a significantly larger industrial base than the USA. Its PPP economy is the same size as the USA. Europe will be out producing the USA in munitions by next year. The only limitation is how long the Ukrainians are willing to fight.
Europe can fight instead . Vlad will never use nukes and the Ukrainians are exhausted
Roy, How does the UK’s nuclear capability impac on supply of conventional weapons to UKR by UK and ENATO nations. I am not seeing the linkage. We would not be offering to put UKR under our nuclear ‘shield’.
The question is how credible is European and British support should the conflict escalate? The British and French deterrents are minimum deterrents, largely for the defence of national territory against a nuclear strike. Should tactical nuclear weapons be used in Ukraine itself, would either the UK or France put their national territory at risk? Only the US can credibly respond to tactical nuclear use in Ukraine, and even the US has shown no willingness to do so. Without the US engaged, the credibility of such support, if the conflict escalates, disappears completely.
Hi Roy the nuclear deterrent of the UK is adequate. It is perfectly able to destroy everything major city in Russia of any significance, essentially destroying Russia as a functioning nation.
I’m not sure how any state has a nuclear capability it can extend to anyone. You’re either going to blow up the other country and end the world or not. Whether you decide to do that to save another country or not is purely a political decision. Separately Britain and France have more than enough weapons to destroy any other state. Combined they probably have the most effective nuclear arsenal outside of the USA given all major nations consider SLBM’s to be the main part of their arsenal with land based Silos being used for little more than target practice for an opposing nuclear force and air launched nuclear weapons being incredibly vulnerable.
8 SSBN’s with 16 Missiles a peace is a world class capability given the survivability of UK and French nuclear submarines and the accuracy of their weapons.
The reason states acquire nuclear arsenals is not to “blow up the world”. That is simplistic. They acquire nuclear arsenals to add the highest level of military capability to their overall national power. How extensive that nuclear capability is then tailors the state’s strategic options. Russia has 4000 to 5000 warheads, including 1000+ tactical warheads. That gives them extensive capabilty to potentially utilize components of that arsenal broadly. They may use tactical weapons in a regional conflict like the Ukraine War and still hold their entire strategic arsenal in reserve. That strategic arsenal has enormous deterrent power, even should they use tactical nuclear weapons “locally”.
The UK on the other hand has 200 warheads. That is a minimum deterrent posture. That arsenal is most unlikely to be used in any scenario other than a nuclear attack on the UK itself. Even were Russia to use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the UK is almost certainly going to do nothing. Because any response would result in a direct nuclear strike on the UK itself. Only the US has the sort of nuclear arsenal that is likely to deter Russia from escalation in Ukraine should it come to that. That is why if the US disengages from Ukraine, Europe (certainly the UK) has few options.
I wonder if has occurred to the President Elect Trump that Europe in its broadest sense will want to build a greater defence industrial base and would after a while buy less from the USA not least to gain economic benefit from the money it needs to spend. Outwardly Trump seems to be a one direction dealer and assumes that Europe will only buy from America to “MAGA” as a result of him pulling funding. That said both sides suggest that British and European ground forces will participate directly in a peacekeeping role, but at best that creates a new solid cold war and at worst increases the probability of active conflict with Putin’s self reinvented Soviet Union.
I’m not sure the Donald thinks about such things. The USA is fairly deindustrialised, Europe has a significantly larger manufacturing base and lower costs of labour.
US weapons can often be very expensive given their ability to charge the US government high prices.
We can’t fund ourselves never mind Ukraine 🙄
Yes we can.
Properly funding our military has never been about whether or not we can afford it; it’s been about what other vote-winning things e.g. NHS, pensions, education etc could they spend the money on instead. It’s a matter of political will, which, sadly, hasn’t been there for defence for the past 30 years from any party in power. They won’t spend properly on defence because there’s no votes in it, and they’re worried about how it’ll look to the public if they either increase taxes or cut funding in other departments to significantly increase the defence budget. They’re just worried about the optics.
I, for one, am happy to keep funding Ukraine and only wish we had more to give. They’re fighting the orcs so that we and the rest of Europe don’t have to. The very least we can do is keep funding and equipping them.
We must have some old 4 ton Bedford’s and used SLRs to give them a long with the kitchen sink as we do not have much left unless buy it in and then send it on to Ukraine, I am totally for helping Ukraine but at what cost our own run down out of date Army.
Apart from Ammo which have not yet replaced we did give Ukraine our cast offs , and nearly all our SP Arty which has not been replaced. And all but one our 4 working b1 MLRS,, most of our working SRAD. and about 10% of our working tanks with most of the ammo for them that is not made any more.
H, you are joking? Once equipment is declared Obsolete it is disposed of ASAP.
The 4-tonners were all sold off decades ago at auction although a few were gifted to Sierra Leone. I think Bedford MK/MJ came out of service in 1982 and its sucessor, Leyland DAF left service in 2014.
The L1A1 SLRs started to be replaced by SA80 in 1985 and the armed forces were re-equipped in a slow programme by 1994. Most SLRs were either destroyed or sold, again with some going to Sierra Leone. Several thousand were sent to the US and sold as parts kits, and others were refurbished by LuxDefTec in Luxembourg and are still on sale to the European market.
MoD really does not keep old kit in warehouses once it has been declared Obsolete.
Still had Bedford MKs in 2006 i know my Regt had 4, I was in Sierra Leon in 2001 when the slrs and bedfords were gifted. Not joking happy for you to check. So your point is not that valid.
As long as Ukraine keeps fighting Russia, our Army doesn’t have to. It makes sense to give Ukraine everything it needs to stay in the fight and hopefully win.
Hi
I frankly think Ukraine could be the least of our problems. Right now Trump ambitions towards, Canada, Panama and Greenland are being answered by a firm diplomatic middle finger.
If Trump is crazy enough to try and take the Panama Canal by force. China will almost certainly pile in on the Panama side as will a large chunk of South America. This will spin out of control in a heart beat. What does NATO and Europe do? I vote we stand back and tell Trump you started it, you finish it.
Not to mention he is playing passive aggressive to 2 NATO members.
Buckle up buttercups we are in for a wild ride for at least two years until the midterms and hopefully saner heads take control of Congress and the Senste.
Trump is full of crap, when he talks about Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal IE taking the canal by force, buying Iceland and making Canada the 51st State of Murica he’s just blowing smoke, the world and his dog knows he is fawns over Putin, Poo and Little Kim aka the rocket man, no he’s just repeatedly saying those things to normalise Putin’s behaviour with regards to Ukraine and maybe China’s too when it comes to Taiwan.
If you think for a solid second that Latin American unity means a single solitary damn outside of the media you need to lay off the booger sugar. If we decided to retake the Canal there is absolutely nothing that could materially slow or inconvenience us see Operation Just Cause. Note back then the Panamanians actually had something that could be called an army. If we decided to reimplement our control of the canal it would take a campaign of hours.
On Canada again that is largely a joke to drag Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party.
On Greenland, what is Denmark doing with it besides restricting development of resource extraction and ignoring local wishes for autonomy?
And you’d end up with nothing, because the Panamanians would destroy lock gates, machinery, etc, making the canal unusable for years to come.
Denmark funds Greenland to the tune of €500million per year, which is why Greenland is not choosing independence.
A true test of American manhood and Trumps great resolve. Invade a small country with no military MAGA 😀
Do you think anyone has the right to take Greenland by force? Would that constitute an attack on NATO and therefore trigger article 5 (collective defence)?
Trump is simply “legitimising” Putins war in UKR by expressing the desire to take neighbours. It’s so stupid & shows he is entirely unfit to lead even a donkey. Nobody who can’t keep tight control of what they say is fit to lead, nobody who lies & demonises anyone who disagrees with them. By his standard either Russia, China or anyone else is free to invade anybody else if they think it’s in their best interests. We need to wake up & be prepared to back UKR all the way if Trump seeks to try to sell UKR out to his buddy Putin. Also Canada is a NATO member, so if the USA invades it’s up to us & the rest of NATO to oppose Trump’s madness.
Did they destroy the locks in 89? No. Even if they could in the time they would have, they would not because that is their entire economy (excluding financial fraud). Also have you ever seen the locks? They are not easily destroyed or damaged. Further many of the technical personnel are either Americans or dual nationals. In addition if the choice is nothing (destroyed canal) or Chinese influence of the canal, nothing is preferable.
On Greenland who do you think would pay more Denmark or the energy and mining industries of the US? Which have the added benefit of never trying to sterilize them (spiral case).