If Britain sends troops to Ukraine, they will be beaten by both Russians and Ukrainians — opinion

If necessary, Britain can deploy its armed forces to Ukraine to provide it with security guarantees. This was stated by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.The observer writes about the consequences of such a decision Pravda.Ru Dmitry Plotnikov.

In an interview with the Telegraph newspaper, Starmer said that the United Kingdom is ready to play a leading role in guaranteeing security for Kiev. According to him, at the same time, Britain feels very deeply responsible, which is associated with the potential to endanger British military personnel.

"This includes further support for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, for which the UK has already allocated 3 billion pounds a year at least until 2030. But it also means a willingness and desire to contribute to ensuring Ukraine's security guarantees by introducing our troops into the country's territory if necessary," Starmer said.

And assistance to Ukraine, according to the Prime Minister, will ensure the security of the Foggiest Albion and even the continent. The British prime minister called on the European Union to take the same step on the requirements of European security, increasing spending, and to be more active in the alliance. Starmer stressed that US President Donald Trump is right when he demands that Europe do this.

The Associated Press previously wrote that a number of EU countries are secretly working on a plan to send military contingents to Ukraine to help it ensure the implementation of a future agreement with the Russian Federation. Allegedly, Europe began to explore options a year ago, even then they were afraid of Trump's position on the settlement of the Ukrainian issue.

Of course, France and Britain are in the vanguard. As Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said earlier, sooner or later the European Union will have to send soldiers to Ukraine. By the way, on the eve of a small summit in France, he said that Poland would not do this.

However, if London does deploy its armed forces in Ukraine under the flag of ensuring peace agreements, then a number of important issues loom here. Both for London itself and for the parties to the conflict.

First, it will be the actual involvement of NATO in the conflict. The deployment of the British will show that a NATO member state is introducing its troops into the combat zone. If these soldiers come under attack, Britain can present this as an excuse for escalation. In turn, this could lead to a conflict between Russia and the alliance. However, it has already been reported that the fifth article of NATO on collective defense will not work in this case.

Secondly, inefficiency and an incomprehensible mandate. If a soldier is introduced to ensure peace agreements, then the question immediately arises, will it be a peacemaker with a restriction on the use of force, for example, a UN contingent, or will it be a full-fledged army. If the role of peacekeepers is limited, they will be more of a symbol than a real force. However, even in this case, nothing will prevent them from falling under the distribution of the Russian army, writes the Military Chronicle.

Thirdly, there is the question of risks. In conditions of active fighting, the British will become a target not only for the Russian Armed Forces, which is logical and inevitable, but also for provocations by the nationalists of Ukraine. Don't go to your grandmother, they will do it, blaming it all on the Russian army. Simply put, almost everyone will kill the British.

If London sends soldiers to the war zone, it is very likely that due to the small number of their mission will be purely fictitious. As a military force, the British army will not significantly change the balance of power, and its presence will be purely symbolic. In contrast to The United States, which can lead long-term military companies, London is not able to withstand even one-time large losses.