Sir Keir Starmer can play the tough guy all he wants with French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, as both men pledged to support Ukraine for as long as necessary.
But without financial muscle to back this up, such promises are simply meaningless.
This issue has become all the more urgent since Donald Trump’s victory last week amid suggestions the incoming US President will pull the plug on American support for Kyiv.
US media reported that Trump warned Russian President Vladimir Putin against escalating the war in Ukraine, citing America’s military presence in the region, something Moscow later denied, while the Trump team refused to confirm.
The omens don’t look good for Kyiv however, especially after Trump’s son – Donald Jr – appeared to warn Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, about ‘losing your allowance’. Trump’s son also said there would be no place for war hawks in the Trump administration.
Frankly, if Trump makes good on this then Ukraine cannot hold the line. The idea that – on current spending commitments – Britain and other European countries can compensate for US support withdrawing is simply for the birds.
If the UK – the leading Western military power after the US – stood even in the remotest chance of aiding Ukraine in the absence of US support, then why is Labour’s commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence when economic conditions allow still unfunded?
The UK National Audit Office has also identified a £17bn shortfall in the budget for new weapons and equipment over the next 10 years.
Little wonder perhaps that former navy chief, Lord West, has suggested Trump’s victory offers an opportunity to show British military commitment by boosting defence spending to an even higher 3% of GDP.
According to the same National Audit Office meanwhile, the UK has so far committed nearly £8bn to Ukraine mostly in the form of missiles, drones, tanks and ships. Still – without US support – on current terms, UK (and French) support becomes meaningless.
Donald Trump is known to be particularly sensitive to the idea that Washington picks up the tab for allies’ defence – an issue likely to be faced by Japan, South Korea and Taiwan as well – and therefore Trump will want to see countries like Britain step up.
Of course, the difference is that the likes of Japan, Korea and Taiwan are already beefing up defence spending as Chinese designs on Taiwan grow. (It is also true that the world offers America an unlimited credit line thanks to the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, even if there is no obvious alternative to the dollar right now.)
Frankly, the US has one-hundred-times more to lose if China takes Taiwan and projects into the Pacific than if Russia gobbles up all its former Soviet empire. This makes any UK defence increase all the more urgent if Sir Keir is actually serious.
The upshot is this: Sir Keir Starmer cannot claim UK support for Ukraine is watertight but at the same time refuse to commit necessary resources when a US President is coming to power who clearly is planning to wind back critical US support.
To be fair, both Labour and the Tories have helped gut UK defence capabilities in recent years. But that is no excuse for Labour to continue emulating reckless Conservative policies.
Labour’s incoming Defence Secretary, John Healey, warned in July the state of the British Armed Forces was “much worse than we thought” thanks to years of budget cuts. Then it falls to him, Sir Keir and Rachel Reeves to do something about it.
Unless and until this happens, Sir Keir’s posturing on Ukraine is just that: posturing. In life you either walk the walk or shut the heck up. Yes, the Tories screwed up Britain’s defence. That is no excuse for Labour to do the same.
