Britain’s ‘100-year partnership’ with Ukraine is a meaningless political stunt

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced a 100-year partnership between their countries during a meeting in Kiev on January 16. On the eve of the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th President of the United States, it is as Britain is. Ukraine’s best friend at a time when Zelensky needs all the friends he can get. In truth, a 100-year partnership doesn’t mean anything new.

Treaties are the circuitry that makes connections between states work. Any VIP visit to another country triggers a scramble to agree deals that can be heralded as a signal both countries are focused on strengthening their partnership. Since 1892, the United Kingdom has entered into over 15,000 treaties. This agreement with Ukraine should be seen in that light.

The UK and Qatar, for example, reached several agreements during the state visit of Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in December 2024, including a $1.3 billion agreement on cooperation in fintech and green energy, as well as joint financing A deal was also included to increase the. Humanitarian projects.

Sometimes, these agreements are pushed more by one side than the other, in their desire to celebrate some more than the other. I brokered a cultural agreement between the UK and Indonesia during a visit by President Megawati Sukarnopatri in the summer of 2002. The Foreign Office reluctantly viewed it as a meaningless document, knowing that it was important to the Indonesian side.

Prime Minister Starmer and President Zelensky appeared sincere in their commitment to a “100-year partnership”. But that doesn’t make it worthwhile. The two appear clutching for good news at a time when Western policy toward Ukraine is set to change.

Newly inaugurated President Trump has set himself a goal to end the Ukraine war in 100 days. Even if the new US administration continues some level of military support for Ukraine, it is doubtful it will match the massive $175bn in support since the war began in 2022.

Ukraine’s second-largest donor—Germany—halved its financial support over the past year and its leaders are fighting over an additional $3bn support package in the run-up to the elections.

This leaves Ukraine’s third-largest donor, and arguably its most enthusiastic supporters – the Britons – to try and plug the growing gap in political, financial and military support for the country.

However, this simply would not be possible.

By government spending standards, that’s £4bn+ ($5bn) the UK has given to Ukraine every year since 2022. This is, in fact, small compared to what the Americans gave, and still not much compared to the more generous payments made by the Germans.

Furthermore, there is no more money to contribute to the British pot, although plenty of Prime Minister Starmer could.

The current Labor government has received bad news on the economy since coming to power in July 2024. Its government was borrowing, leading Stammers to warn the public of potentially ruthless cuts to public services while he was in Ukraine.

The Labor government seems to be possibly on the verge of cutting disability benefits, following a badly handled cut to winter fuel payments for older people.

This is bad news for the British people and also for Zelensky in Kiev.

Unlike the US, UK policy towards Ukraine enjoys strong cross-party parliamentary support. The UK mainstream media has also insulated both the Conservative and Labor governments from any criticism of their spending in Ukraine.

But as Trump pushes for a negotiated ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, and as economic bad news piles up in Britain, UK government spending on Ukraine will not stop forever.

On this basis, and despite the eye-catching title, there was very little of last week’s 100-year partnership announcement. Britain and Ukraine already agreed a 568-page political, free trade and strategic partnership agreement in 2020, which was finally put before parliament in January 2022, shortly before the war began.

The strategic dialogue announced last week was incorporated into the 2020 treaty. £3bn ($3.7bn) in annual military funding since the start of the war and a £2.2bn ($2.7bn) loan to Ukraine in June 2024 within the G7’s extraordinary revenue acceleration loan Consent has been expressed.

The only new money was a £40m piece to support the development of small and medium-sized enterprises in Ukraine’s devastated economy, which will be funded by the UK’s development aid budget.

There was no major revelation. No wow moments.

Just a big dose of “So what?”

Britain cannot afford to provide Ukraine with more money.

This may change in 100 years, but it won’t change any time soon.

Her Majesty’s Government would also not write a cast-iron commitment to provide £3bn in annual military aid to Ukraine for 100 years. No government on earth will do this.

Starmer’s position of this support for “as long as it takes” simply gives him an off-ramp when a Trump-brokered ceasefire is agreed.

A ceasefire in Ukraine would put pressure on Kiev to scale back its huge military spending, which accounts for 50 percent of government spending and one-quarter of GDP each year.

On a Trump-brokered ceasefire, there should be less need for foreign handouts, at least in theory.

The 100-year inclusion in the name of this agreement is legally meaningless in any case as states can withdraw from the treaties at any time. Russia and the US have withdrawn from several nuclear arms control treaties in recent years, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) Treaty and the New START Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.

There is no guarantee that a future British government could not lose the agreement on the grounds that it is a potentially costly political grind.

The 100 year agreement is just a political stunt. It is a breathless attempt to show that Britain is willing to greenlight Western support for Ukraine, when Trump—with whom by all accounts he has a terrible relationship—seems to be much more essential in Ukraine policy. It’s going to restore realism.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.