It is sometimes said the first duty of a government is to keep the country secure and its citizens safe, and few would disagree. It is invariably unwise for governments to provoke their counterparts, particularly when those counterparts are stronger. If they do, they can hardly complain if there are consequences.
On June 1, then-British defense secretary John Healey told the House of Commons, “Russia poses a significant threat to UK and Atlantic Security”, and it is not hard to see why. Successive British governments have expressed their hostility toward Moscow since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and at no point has the hand of friendship been extended. Not surprisingly, relations have grown increasingly strained.
Since 2022, the United Kingdom has reportedly provided Ukraine with over 25 billion pounds ($34 billion) to fund its conflict with Russia, with 16 billion pounds being military assistance. It has also undertaken to contribute 3 billion pounds annually to Kyiv for as long as necessary (despite itself being 3 trillion pounds in debt and struggling to meet its NATO spending target of 3 percent of GDP by 2030).
Moreover, Healey said he planned to chair a meeting that month of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group at NATO headquarters at which “we will look to further step up the military aid we can provide together”.
In other words, the UK is determined not only to own (at least partially) an eastern European conflict, but also to keep it going until there is an outcome that disadvantages Moscow.
It was therefore unsurprising that when US President Donald Trump, upon taking office last year, met with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, in an attempt to bring the conflict to an end, the UK reacted negatively. It urged Zelensky to forget about peace and keep on fighting. The then-prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, even formed the “coalition of the willing” to embolden Zelensky, the height of irresponsibility.
After all, Ukraine is not a NATO member, let alone a European Union state, and the long-standing tensions between Russia and Ukraine are none of Britain’s business. There is no justification for it to involve itself in a remote regional conflict; by doing so, it is only asking for trouble. The UK has diplomatic relations with Russia, and if it wants to use Ukraine to wage a proxy war against Moscow, it is not easy to understand why it chooses to maintain those ties.
In June, Dame Emily Thornberry, who chairs parliament’s foreign affairs committee, shed light on the country’s stance. She explained that the UK and its allies were determined to thwart Russia’s efforts to “reassert itself as a great power and dominant regional actor”. They want, therefore, to keep Russia firmly in its place as NATO expands into its backyard and seeks to recruit Ukraine (as it has the Baltic States and Russia’s other neighbors, encircling it entirely).
Moreover, both the UK’s National Security Strategy (2025) and Strategic Defense Review (2026) have fanned hostility, painting Moscow as the most acute threat to the UK. As a consequence, Britain has focused its efforts on practical support for Ukraine, notably munitions. Although initially defensive, that support has now become increasingly offensive.
In February, the Russian ambassador to the UK, Andrey Kelin, said, “We have every right to consider London as a de facto party to the conflict”, and it is not hard to see why.
The Sunday Times reported (Aug 16) that British drones, for the first time, have been used to strike targets on the Russian mainland over the past six months. They were made by two British companies, and have been used by Ukraine as part of its deep-strike campaign into Russia. About 120,000 have been provided so far, with targets including oil refineries, naval bases, logistics hubs, and transport networks. Over 35 billion pounds of damage has resulted to the Russian economy, with many casualties.
The use of British drones against Russia is a significant escalation of the UK’s involvement, and inevitably invites retaliation. Although Starmer had previously got away (largely) with supplying Ukraine with Storm Shadow cruise missiles (with ranges of 150 miles) and seizing Russian “shadow fleet” oil tankers, Moscow’s patience with London must by now be at breaking point.
Indeed, Russian President Vladimir Putin has already threatened (Aug 12) to seize British vessels in retaliation. And the Russian fleet commander, Viktor Liina, went further, saying that 26 British commercial vessels in Russia’s exclusive international zone had been identified over the past four months and would be targeted if the boardings continued.
Military analysts acknowledge this could be just the start, with the factories of British arms manufacturers also being seen as legitimate targets.
When the UK’s new prime minister, Andy Burnham, met Zelensky in London last month (as his first international visitor), he assured him that the UK was “with Ukraine 100 percent”. He added, “You can count on the UK for as long as it takes”. Although these tired cliches will have delighted the arms manufacturers almost as much as they did Zelensky, there were no winners at home.
The UK and its people have been placed in the gravest possible danger. This would be bad enough if the UK were in a position to defend itself, but unfortunately it is not.
As Lord (Geoffrey) Robertson, a former NATO secretary-general (and ex-British defense secretary), has explained (April 14), the UK is, defensively, “under-prepared”, “under-insured”, and “not safe”. He said its “national security and safety is in peril”. In June, moreover, Healey resigned as defense secretary because underfunding of the armed forces had left the country vulnerable “at this time of rising threats”.
Instead, therefore, of antagonizing Moscow and strutting around like just another gormless Western warmonger, Burnham should remember that “blessed are the peacemakers”. If this means showing real leadership, abandoning the UK’s Cold War mentality and turning off Zelensky’s tap, so be it. He should join hands with Trump in seeking a solution to a conflict that has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Ukrainians (and Russians) and is rapidly approaching its fifth anniversary.
If this can be achieved, it will be a prize worth having, however much it may upset British hawks and NATO Russophobes. The immediate dangers will recede, and the UK will be safer than it has been for many years — a worthy objective in anybody’s book.
Although NATO will have failed to enlist Ukraine, Burnham will at least have demonstrated the statesmanship that eluded his predecessors and has been so signally lacking globally in recent times.
The author is a senior counsel and law professor, and was previously the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
