UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy receive a briefing in Kyiv on an FPV drone carrier—a joint Ukrainian-British development—and Ukrainian reconnaissance UAVs equipped with UK-manufactured communication modules
I remember back in my schooldays in the relatively poor industrial Northeast of England there were often fights in the school playground. It was usually about a possession that had been owned by one party and seized by the other, (unless it was about which football team you supported: Newcastle United or Sunderland). The fights themselves tended to be brief and never to my knowledge inflicted serious or lasting injuries, just an occasional bruise. Still, the cause was an issue that mattered to the protagonists, if to nobody else. Of course, the same sort of minor disagreement can escalate into physical conflict in the big wide world of international politics. Just look at Ukraine.
The principal protagonists – Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are not so much after cash, more in pursuit of power and influence. Not that they need money urgently. Trump may be worth $5.5-billion (€5.25-billion) according to Forbes) or perhaps $7.08-billion (€6.75-billion), if Bloomberg is on the money. However, it’s just peanuts compared with Putin’s massive wealth, estimated by Bill Browder, the American-born businessman who made a fortune in Russia before losing it after falling out with some dangerous people. He estimates Putin’s wealth at some $200-billion (€191.billion). In his excellent book “We Need to Talk About Putin”, Mark Galeotti makes it clear that Putin’s goal is to restore Russia’s sense of purpose, based on its history, although he wants to cherry-pick those parts of history that suit his narrative that Russia has been “perennially battered and belittled by foreigners”. In his vision of Russia’s historical greatness, he includes the Soviet victory in 1945, for instance, but ignores Communism.
Currently leading the “peacenik” bids against the threat of a wider war is the UK. The British government has already talked about sanctions that will hurt Russia and infuriate Putin, with more to come unless Moscow backs off from its attempts to take over Ukraine. But it won’t, of course: there’s too much at stake. The Kremlin may crow about Russia’s “village-by-village” military successes, but that matters no more than those playground disputes over which football team you supported, or whose sister is the sexiest (none of them, as I recall). But in the case of Ukraine there’s rather more to be gained or lost, even if the two loudest protagonists are playing down the importance of victory. Taking control of Kiev may be relatively unimportant, but taking control of Ukraine’s mineral wealth is not.
The plain fact is that Ukraine is blessed with many rare and valuable minerals, few of them easy to access: they’re known as “rare earths”. In fact, wherever such materials are (and even when they are near to the surface) it’s difficult to access them. Ukraine has coal, of course, although that’s harder to sell and dirty to use, but the country has many more riches besides. Getting to them, however, will be expensive. According to the 2024 edition of World Mining Data, Ukraine is the world’s 10th largest producer of iron, which may seem boring, if valuable, but there are lots of other materials, too, such as lithium, which is needed in the manufacture of the batteries for electric vehicles, among several other uses. Ukraine can also boast generous supplies of manganese, uranium, titanium and a variety of rare earth elements, such as tantalum, niobium, beryllium, strontium and magnetite. All-in-all the country boasts some 17 to 20 different types of rare earths, although some may be in such small quantities that commercial exploitation could prove unprofitable. However, the European Commission has stated that “Ukraine is a significant supplier of titanium and is a potential source of over 20 critical raw materials.” It seems likely to me that Russia’s desire to take the country over, as well as Trump’s deep interest, has more to do with profitability than with assuring the freedoms of a people or even changing the colour of its flag. Money means a great deal to both Putin and Trump, who has told Volodymyr Zelensky he expects to be given €500 billion worth of rare earths in return for any US help. Needless to say Putin has condemned any sort of help, even the kind one has to pay for. After all, he wants those minerals and rare earths for himself. They’re potentially very valuable indeed and some of them are useful in the manufacture of powerful weapons of mass destruction.
Their value is such that Putin’s often corrupt and even criminal supporters are unlikely to desert him. It’s like that old saying: “Keep your friends close but your enemies closer”. They’re not actual enemies but they’re not friends to trust. As it was back in Tsarist times, senior officials are encouraged to “milk” their positions for profit. It was called “kormleniye”, which means feeding, and it was intended to ensure loyalty. It still does.
To discourage Russia’s acquisitiveness, the UK government is applying sanctions (set to increase and worsen at the time of writing). As the world notes the third anniversary of Russia’s brutal invasion, British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said he intends to “tighten the screws” on Moscow. Oddly, few people other than minerologists are even aware that Ukraine has vast reserves of “rare earths”. Trump has said that President Zelensky has a limited time in which agree to effectively give his country’s immense mineral wealth to the United States or be taken over by Russia. There is no winning option for Ukraine there. Whichever way you look at it, Putin and Russia will have won, although they’ll probably have to share some of the immense wealth they’ll gain with. Ukraine, of course, much bombed and having lost territory to the Russian invader, gains nothing and it will get no guarantee that Russia will stop there. Putin will undoubtedly want the rest of Ukraine.
Lammy has told the media that his aim is to “hamper” Putin’s military operations and capabilities, to which end the UK will continue to work with the US but also with its European partners in the hope of achieving what he called “a sustainable and just peace”, but he insisted that any negotiations must involve Ukraine itself, unlike the talks organised by Washington to end the conflict, from which, bizarrely, Ukraine was excluded. As it is, 60% of British people think Zelensky has been doing a good job in his unanticipated confrontation with Putin, according to a leading opinion poll. The same poll showed that far more British people – 50%, in fact – say they’re more worried about what’s happening there in the light of Trump’s re-election. European leaders were shocked when Trump blamed Zelensky for the war and for Russia’s invasion, calling him a “dictator”. In the UK, according to a recent survey, only 20% of people approve Trump’s handling of the crisis and only 34% are opposed to Britain’s stance, although only 17% can imagine a return to the borders that existed prior to Putin’s invasion. There is very little agreement about how the war will end, assuming it ever does.
Defence leaders from around the world have met in Brussels at the invitation of the UK government for a summit meeting at NATO’s headquarters. They wanted to show Putin that his belief that he could not only launch but win his war in Ukraine in just three days was demonstrably wrong. It seems to have been a claim rooted in arrogance. He has been allowed to get away with too much for too long, believing, it seems, that neighbouring countries would quickly cave in, rather risk a confrontation with Moscow. However, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has signed a 100-year partnership deal with Ukraine. That is not going to be sacrificed as a simple sop to Putin’s egotistical ambitions. Britain has also extended loans to Kiev that will be repaid out of the profits from Russian assets still invested in the UK. In all, Britain’s aid to Ukraine extends to £15-billion (more than €18-billion). British Politico-Military Counsellor Ankur Narayan says that the UK’s priority is to ensure Ukraine is in the strongest possible position for negotiations while continuing to resist the invading forces. He told the meeting: “On 14 February the Prime Minister yet again reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to Ukraine’s irreversible path towards NATO membership and has since called for ongoing support from Allies, as agreed at the Washington Summit last year. Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO reflects its desire for security and recognition of shared values on democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.” He restated that the advantages flow both ways.
“The UK believes Ukraine’s NATO membership would strengthen the Alliance and contribute to European stability and security. NATO has shown its commitment to Ukraine’s security through military support, training, and intelligence-sharing, and remains determined to assist Ukraine in defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity.” He reminded those attending the conference that Russia’s actions are in breach of international law. He stressed the territorial integrity of all countries. “States will refrain from making each other’s territory the object of military occupation or other measures of force in contravention of international law. No such occupation or acquisition will be recognized as legal.” It’s not clear if either Putin or Trump were taking any notice, but Britain and Norway have strengthened their ties in order to face Russian aggression. Naryan told delegates: “This illegal war instigated by Russia can end only when Russia chooses to withdraw its forces and cease its unlawful aggression, allowing Ukraine to chart its own course, free from external threats.” Naryan hopes that course will lead Ukraine to join NATO. He warned that a bad peace deal would cause widespread harm, way beyond the borders of Ukraine.
Britain is pressing on with its preparations for a war it fears may prove unavoidable. The UK government has struck a £9-billion (€10.7-billion) deal with Rolls Royce to bolster support for the British Navy’s fleet of nuclear submarines, which would improve Britain’s security and also its economic growth.
In every case, the suggested solutions involve standing up to Putin, not giving in to him, as Trump seems to want the West to do. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy, after listening to the speech of his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov at a closed meeting of G20 foreign ministers in South Africa, stated that he saw no appetite from Russia for peace with Ukraine. Unfortunately, not all Western countries agree on the best approach to dealing with Putin’s naked aggression. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is determined not to cave in to Putin’s demands. Starmer has expressed a willingness to put UK troops into Ukraine to help guarantee security in the (unlikely) event of a peace deal being struck. He described peace in Ukraine as “essential if we are to deter Putin from further aggression in the future.” That won’t be easy, since Putin seems to think he’s undefeatable, while he clings to the illusion that Russia is still a “great power”. The fact that it is not is clearly Putin’s fault, too! However, UK military advisor Lt. Col. Joby Rimmer said: “nobody desires peace more than Ukraine, yet peace must be just and sustainable.” Of the bravery of the Ukrainians, he told a conference in Vienna: “It is our responsibility to ensure that they do not stand alone. As we approach the fourth year of Russia’s illegal war of aggression, Ukraine’s resilience remains nothing short of extraordinary. Despite immense challenges, Ukraine continues to demonstrate an unbreakable spirit and an unyielding commitment to its sovereignty, freedom, and the rules-based international order.” No sign there of a willingness to compromise to get any sort of peace, as Trump advocates. Indeed, Lt. Col. Rimmer reiterated Britain’s determination to stand side-by-side with the Ukrainians. “President Putin’s war is built on a demand for total submission through violence,” he said. “No sovereign nation could or should, accept such terms.”
Britain’s ambassador, Neil Holland, who has headed the UK Delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) since May 2023, reminded delegates at a conference of the Commonwealth and Development Office that Putin is a liar, determined to mislead his enemies and everyone else. Just before the invasion, back in January, he was still telling the world that the tales of an imminent invasion were “mere myths”. Yet the war began and goes on. “A war Russia launched under the false pretext of protecting Ukrainian civilians has instead caused thousands of them to be killed,” Holland said. “A war which we were told would not happen has, since those denials, violated every principle of the Helsinki Final Act and demonstrated Putin’s contempt for the rules that govern armed conflict.” Yet Trump considers Putin to be “reliable” and has said the man is in favour of peace. That’s not a view that would have been shared by Svetlana Alliluyeva – the daughter of Joseph Stalin. In her biography, written by Rosemary Sullivan, she expresses a fear that “Russia is quickly (in my opinion) sliding back into the past – with that awful former KGB-SPY (Putin) now an acting president! I do hope and believe the people will not vote him into the presidency – but then of course elections always could be rigged”. She would know, of course. It’s a book everyone should read; highly recommended!! She reminds readers that the Chechen (or Tchetchen) War (known in Russia as “the Glorious One”) was provoked by Russia very deliberately. “The Tchetchens – feisty as they are – would never go outside their mountains to bomb cities in Russia-proper,” she argued. “That is just not the way of doing their guerilla war – it was done by the KGB itself.” I think we must assume she knows what she’s talking about.
The UK, however, continues to make things harder for Russians, especially those who are wealthy or in positions of power (there’s no shortage of them!).
Local and federal politicians, along with managers or directors of large Russian companies are to be banned from entering the UK at all. This is in addition to measures to prevent notable business figures such as Roman Abramovich from remaining in Britain. UK Security Minister Dan Jarvis has announced that members of Russian elites are being barred from entering or remaining in the UK. The Home Secretary has been given discretionary powers to prevent such people from travelling here. Former British Defence Secretary Sir Ben Wallace, who has dismissed Trump’s insulting remarks about Zelensky as “pure Disney” has suggested that Ukraine could join with Europe in future negotiations, pointing out that taken together the countries of Europe have given more money to Ukraine than the United States. Wallace wants to UK to increase its numbers of boots on the ground, as well as the available amount of weaponry.
Britain’s Defence Secretary, John Healey, has said that the UK is facing “a new era of threat” from Russia and he has promised to respond with the “biggest shake-up” to Britain’s military for fifty years as the country prepares for war. Sadly, war looks inevitable. He told a meeting of the Institute for Government that Britain must re-arm if it is to face up to the hostility of Russia. Healey also unveiled a new command structure at the Ministry of Defence, pledging to replace out-dated policies put in place by previous governments while also cutting waste and reducing duplication.
The announcement came after the supposed peace-talks in Saudi Arabia between the US and Russia. Not every leader agreed with Starmer on the need for a unified force to patrol the Russia-Ukraine border, with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz walking out of the meeting. Poland, Spain and Italy also expressed their doubts. However, Russia certainly isn’t making friends in Europe, with a bottle exploding after it was thrown at a Russian consulate at Marseille, in the south of France. Putin appears to think he’s popular among ordinary people in Europe. He’s wrong. In any case, the current chief of Britain’s army, Sir Roly Walker, has said that the UK must be ready to fight a war within the next three years and that size of the fighting force needs to triple. Healey said Britain had become very skilled at conducting military operations, but he told reporters: “What we’ve not been ready to do is fight.” He added: “Unless we are ready to fight, we are not in a shape to deter”.
Donald Trump, meanwhile, still insists that Putin wants a peace deal, despite the Russian leader having dispatched a large number of North Korean forces to help his own troops to fight the Ukrainians, although they pulled out last year because of heavy losses. At the United Nations, the US voted with Russia on the Ukraine war. We should recall that when this war began, Putin denied it was a war at all. It was, he said, “a special military operation”. Now Trump says he wants an end to what he calls a “ridiculous war”, but he has no more idea of how to achieve that than Putin has. Being Trump, though, he reckons it would be easier to bring pressure to bear on Ukraine than on Russia. As for Putin himself, he seems to be playing for time in the belief (probably incorrect) that he has more patience than Ukraine or the West in general. But he needs the help and support Donald Trump. One thing on which both men agree is that they’d like to see the back of Zelensky. He’s costing them both money. As The Economist magazine points out, Putin’s army has, in its own words, “performed dismally”, with a pace of advance it describes as “excruciatingly slow”. Its gains were mainly during the early weeks of the war, when it controlled 19.6% of Ukrainian territory, while its losses have soared from 20,000 to 800,000 and the area under its control has shrunk to 19.2%. Looking at the comparative sizes and wealth of the two countries it’s an appalling situation for Russia. Furthermore, most of its Soviet-era armour is gone or not repairable and The Economist writes that by April Putin may run out of Russia’s T-80 tanks. He doesn’t have widespread popular support, either: most Russians want the war to end. Now that the UK (and others) are putting the squeeze on Russia’s wealthy and powerful, support for the conflict looks set to dwindle further.
His business people and top politicians want to remain on good terms with Britain because it’s to their advantage, whatever Putin may think. We should recall that when Putin wanted to build a luxurious dacha, complete with private theatre and three helicopter pads (Mark Galeotti again!), he demanded that several of the country’s richest businessmen should make “voluntary contributions” to fund it. They did. After all, as Mark Galeotti writes, however much Western sanctions have cost the Russian economy since 2014, “Russia’s own political and business elite have cost the country up to six times as much”. Corruption eats up a third of the country’s GDP. It all makes nonsense of Trump’s claim that Russia holds all the cards in the conflict with Ukraine because of the territory it has seized, which would appear to be something Trump favours and which is dwindling anyway. The Alliance would like to see the hostility scaled down, but Moscow doesn’t agree, it seems. “NATO remains willing to maintain channels of communication with Moscow to mitigate risks and prevent escalation,” a NATO spokesman has stated.
NATO tried to establish a productive working relationship with Russia for three decades, but Russia’s constant and unpredictable breaches of peaceful order have rendered that impossible. Steve Covington, an advisor to NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, says Putin seems determined to continue trying to break Ukraine and to dismantle the US-led post-1945 order. Putin told his diplomats last year that “the entire system of Euro-Atlantic security is crumbling before our eyes.” That looks like wishful thinking on his part, because it isn’t. Still, he seems to have Trump on his side. We must recall that it was at a Munich Security Conference in 2007 that Putin first declared his determination to fight the West. Why? Ask him; there’s no obvious reason that would be to Russia’s advantage.
