United States, Canada and the United Kingdom are working hard to improve Ukraine's military capabilities.
 |
| [Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau paying his visit at Canada-Ukraine Armed Forces joint exercise amid Russian threat in Ukraine] |
Discussions about Russia's impending invasion of Ukraine have dominated the global political scene in recent months. Despite the fact that no one produced compelling evidence of these aggressive plans, all NATO countries pledged support for Kiev, with some moving from words to acts in the form of financial aid and weaponry supply. In addition to the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom are working hard to improve Ukraine's military capabilities. Furthermore, the latter not only delivered lethal weaponry to Kiev, but also began developing the Ukrainian Navy and indicated ambitions to build a strategic alliance with Kiev and Warsaw.
In response, Canada dispatched hundreds of millions of dollars to Kiev, as well as instructors who have already trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers.
Washington is not alone
A type of club of Kiev defenders has arisen in the months since the initial reports of a probable Russian invasion of Ukraine. And the United Kingdom has become the most active member of this club, second only to the United States in this regard.
Early in February, it was revealed that the United Kingdom intended to form a trilateral alliance with Ukraine and Poland. Irina Vereshchuk, Ukraine's Minister for the Reintegration of Uncontrolled Territories, stated that the union will successfully oppose the "Russian menace." It should be emphasised that this is not the first trilateral relationship involving Ukraine and Poland; these nations, together with Lithuania, form the so-called Lublin Triangle, whose goal is to build an alternative to the "Russian world."
Ukraine, on the other hand, should not expect any practical gain from the same proposed "small alliance" with the United Kingdom and Poland. According to Andrey Kortunov, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council (INAC), it will be about the same types of bilateral cooperation that already exist: arms supplies, joint exercises, a training programme for the Ukrainian military, and possibly the exchange of intelligence information. "The Ukrainian leadership will promote this as a huge success, despite the fact that the practical importance of this type of multilateral framework is quite limited," Kortunov said in an interview.
Sanctions pressure on Russia is another area of British political support for Ukraine. In the case of a Russian invasion, London has already prepared a package of sanctions: they would impact firms and persons "important to the Kremlin" - their British assets will be blocked, and local companies will be barred from doing business with them. Foreign Minister Liz Truss would not rule out the possibility that the sanctions may harm Russian oligarchs' property in the United Kingdom.
"Sanctions might be imposed on any firm of relevance to the Kremlin and the Russian authorities. Putin's oligarchs and Russian corporations that support the Russian state will then have nowhere to hide."—British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss
 |
| [Foreign Secretary of United Kingdom, Liz Truss] |
London also helps Ukraine with financial and military assistance. During his visit to Kiev, Johnson pledged an investment of 88 million pounds to help Ukraine achieve "energy independence." The British government recently announced the Partnership for a Strong Ukraine initiative, which aims to generate 35 million pounds over three years to "mitigate Russia's destabilising impact."
Furthermore, the UK would provide Ukraine 1.7 billion pounds to help modernise the country's naval capabilities. The funding will be used to purchase two anti-mine ships and maintain them, as well as to co-build eight missile boats and a frigate and outfit them with armament equipment. On January 27, the Verkhovna Rada ratified the accord.
The United Kingdom provided 2,000 anti-tank weaponry to Ukraine in the second part of January. This was London's first transfer of lethal weaponry to Ukraine; previously, it had only sent non-lethal equipment and equipment. About 30 fighters from the British army's elite special forces went into the nation on the same planes that are intended to teach the Ukrainian military to operate the new weapons.
British Defense Minister Ben Wallace stated that the weapons delivered to Ukraine are not strategic and hence "do not constitute a danger to Russia," but cautioned that the invasion will result in "massive casualties on both sides." The Prime Minister of the nation stated a similar view, but in a harsher version.
Canada has toned down its rhetoric, but it is still actively helping Ukraine, both politically and militarily. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that Canada will lend Ukraine 120 million Canadian dollars (94 million US dollars) to help the country's economy in the face of the "Russian threat," as well as another 50 million Canadian dollars in humanitarian relief.
Furthermore, Trudeau announced a 340 million Canadian dollar (268 million US dollar) funding to continue the Canadian Unifier mission, which educates Ukrainian military personnel, for another three years. On February 4, a Canadian jet flew to Ukraine with a new shipment of non-lethal weaponry, including body armour, optical sights, surveillance devices, and intelligence equipment.
Longtime ties
The United Kingdom's and Canada's interest in Ukraine, as well as their role in the country's fate, are not new, according to specialists. In 1991, Canada was one of the first countries to acknowledge Ukraine's independence. The United Kingdom was the first member of the European Economic Community to do so (as the European Union was then called ).
After the fall of the Soviet Union, Soviet nuclear weapons remained in Ukraine, and when Kiev decided to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1994, the United Kingdom, along with the United States and Russia, provided Ukraine with security guarantees in exchange for its renunciation of nuclear warheads. These accords were codified in the Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity among other things. The takeover of Crimea by Russia in 2014 was seen by the United Kingdom as a breach of the treaty to which it is a signatory.
In an interview with Russian media Lenta, Nicholas Williams, a senior fellow at the European Leadership Network think tank and a former official at the British Ministry of Defense, claimed that Britain has been interested in Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic integration since the 1990s. After the Ukrainian government, led by Viktor Yanukovych, legislated the country's non-bloc status in 2010, the UK maintained its interest in Ukraine, but moved its focus from giving Kiev NATO membership to allowing Kiev to join the European Union. "The UK, along with Poland, obstinately pushed through the EU-Ukraine association agreement," the expert remembered.
The year 2014 marked a watershed moment. The Verkhovna Rada eliminated Ukraine's non-bloc status at the end of that year, and London refocused on military cooperation with Kiev. The British, in particular, were among the proponents of awarding Ukraine the position of NATO partner with expanded capabilities. "The UK is attempting to pull Ukraine as near to NATO as possible without admitting it," Williams explained.
According to him, a whole generation of British diplomats and experts, while acknowledging that Ukraine must undertake a number of reforms and combat corruption, are persuaded that, in the end, it should be "absorbed" by the West and become part of the "sphere of peace and security."
Although the United Kingdom appears to be physically further away from Ukraine than Germany and France, it demonstrates greater conservatism and dedication to values in helping Kiev in its conflict with Russia. "It is exactly because of its geographical isolation that the United Kingdom, unlike Germany and France, has less grounds to dread economic shocks or delays in energy supply." "This explains its harsh approach toward Russia," the former British diplomat added.
The United Kingdom is also heavily involved in the training of Ukrainian military personnel. The training operation Orbital was initiated in 2015, the British Ministry of Defense announced the construction of an international training mission for the Ukrainian Navy in 2020, and London launched a separate initiative to strengthen Ukraine's naval potential in 2021. These programmes have provided military training to almost 22,000 Ukrainian personnel.
Canada, like the United Kingdom, refused to accept the results of the Crimean referendum and has been an outspoken supporter of sanctions on Russia since 2014, with over 400 legal companies and individuals on the Canadian sanctions list. Furthermore, Canada is pouring enormous sums into Ukraine: from the beginning of the Ukrainian conflict, Kiev has received 890 million Canadian dollars in financial support (about 700 million US dollars).
The Canadian Forces have also been training Ukrainian forces since 2015. Approximately 200 Canadian instructors were in the nation on a rotating basis for this reason, but the Canadian government confirmed the transfer of an additional 60 troops at the end of January. Furthermore, Ottawa permitted the mission's complement to be increased to 400 soldiers.
In addition to obvious reasons such as NATO membership and allied relations with the United States, one of the key factors in Canada's similar involvement in the situation in Ukraine is the domestic political factor, Yevgenia Israelyan, a leading researcher at the Institute for the US and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences , told media. The fact is that Canada is home to a large - the third largest in the world - Ukrainian diaspora, which numbers about 1.3 million people. “Many of the decisions concerning Ukraine are made under the influence of this diaspora. She, of course, is very sharply anti-Russian,” Israelyan said.
Representatives of the Ukrainian diaspora, on the other hand, are disappointed with the degree of assistance supplied to Kiev, calling it "insignificant." Ottawa is being chastised for being too cautious and slow: the president of the World Congress of Ukrainians, Pavlo Grod, claims that the Canadian prime minister and his staff "speak the right words, but they must be supported by deeds." "Canada should lead G7 efforts to help Ukraine, not trail behind," he suggested.
Maple Peacekeepers
According to Israelyan, the scenario in which the Canadian military, however unwittingly, becomes involved in hostilities in Ukraine is unrealistic: the Canadians have already began the relocation of their forces to the west of the Dnieper in order to avoid such a development of events.
Furthermore, Canada has continuously refused to supply Ukraine with deadly weaponry. Following Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly's visit to Kiev on January 18, there was some speculation on this issue: the diplomat stated at a briefing with her Ukrainian counterpart Dmitry Kuleba that the Canadian authorities will soon make judgments on sending deadly weapons to Ukraine.
Trudeau, on the other hand, quickly crossed the i's: Canada would not deliver deadly weapons to Kiev, but would continue Operation Uniter for another three years. Such a move was received with dissatisfaction in Ukraine.
However, the Canadian press reported two days before Trudeau's remark that his government was still debating the delivery of small guns and ammunition to Ukraine. Israelyan did not rule out the possibility that the situation would change in the future: it is likely that the final decision has not yet been made, and some progress is possible in the near future, dictated by both the pressure of allies and the pressure of the Ukrainian diaspora within the country.
"However, it is doubtful that Canada will deliver deadly weaponry." She is attempting to keep her reputation as a peacemaker and a state that ends disputes peacefully, and she has also acceded to the International Treaty on the Trade in Arms (the agreement restricts providing arms to belligerent governments - approximately the analyst observed.
Symbolism in Britain
Much more hopeful in this respect is Ukraine's collaboration with the United Kingdom, which has already began delivery of deadly weapons, wants to enhance the Ukrainian Navy, and does not rule out future efforts to bolster Kiev's military capabilities.
In the case of a military war, however, Kiev will not be forced to rely on British forces. Only roughly 100 British instructors are stationed in Ukraine as part of Operation Orbital, while 900 military troops are stationed in Estonia and another 150 in Poland. Even with the expected rise in British military involvement in Eastern Europe, these are very low levels of engagement in confrontations. And the British government made it clear diplomatically that British troops would not fight in Ukraine.
The "interior kitchen" of the North Atlantic Alliance played an essential influence in London's decision to extend its presence in the Baltic nations and Poland. Williams, who worked for the British Ministry of Defense as well as NATO for 20 years, stated that historically, the organisation has had divides and conflicts between Western and Eastern European members. Britain frequently sided with the allies from Eastern Europe and sent armed contingents there. As a result, despite the fact that the UK is not a member of the EU, these nations prefer to listen to London more than, say, Paris, which they think may forsake Eastern European friends in exchange for greater ties with Moscow.
NATO defence ministers will meet in Brussels on February 16-17 to consider boosting the alliance's military presence in Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Slovakia. Against the backdrop of 130,000 Russian troops, which the Western media is hyping, the existing NATO contingent in the region appears, to put it bluntly, unimpressive.
According to Williams, the present Ukrainian crisis has prompted NATO to shift from a simply symbolic deployment of soldiers on its eastern border to the establishment of a full-fledged collective defence. "Previously, NATO, in my perspective, did not have collective defence as such: the alliance was primarily involved in reacting to crises in Afghanistan, Libya, the Balkans, and so on." "We are now seeing how NATO is steadily constructing its collective defence," he added. And the United Kingdom, with its strong military capabilities, will play a significant part in this process.
Although it is obvious that neither the United Kingdom, Canada, nor the United States wish to meddle directly in Ukrainian affairs, the United Kingdom's and Canada's increased military support to Ukraine is reason for worry. Cash injections and weaponry shipments to Ukraine, as predicted in Western capitals, may boost Kiev's self-confidence, but will not benefit the region in the long run.
The introduction of weapons and military instructors does not lessen, but rather enhances, the likelihood of a conflict erupting in the Donbass, resulting in considerable human losses. Financial aid and regular loan allocations can make Ukraine, which is keen to achieve total independence from Russia, even more dependent - although on other nations - and drive it into debt. Unfortunately, several states have already done so. Of course, such a situation will not favour Russia, and its potential responses - both political and military-technical - would eventually benefit no one, not even the United Kingdom and Canada, which are isolated from the European continent by the sea.