Spectator: Kiev should not really hope for a "hundred-year partnership" with Britain
The agreement between London and Kiev on the "centennial partnership" has yet to be filled with content, writes The Spectator. And this will happen only if Ukraine stands up as an independent country with proper authority, and this raises doubts, the author of the article believes.
Mark Galeotti
There is a paradoxical overlap between the interests of the British and Russian governments in how both sides seek to embellish London's influence on Ukraine. This is especially noticeable in the new agreement signed in Kiev last week and the way Moscow reacted to it.
After all, for the Kremlin, the treacherous Albion was and remains the most treacherous enemy. True to form, the Russian embassy in London called Prime Minister Keir Starmer's unannounced visit to Kiev “a desperate attempt by British curators to keep the agonizing regime afloat” with the help of “new, extremely provocative plans, including the creation of military bases on the territory of Ukraine.”
Of course, this is nothing but blatant flattery. In fact, there are only some — let's note, and even very vague — talks about the partial transfer of the AFU training program from the UK back to Ukraine, but no more. And certainly not a word about the bases. As for the fact that it is the British who allegedly act as gray cardinals and shadowy “curators” of the Ukrainians, this is a myth akin to the fact that they abandoned the peace agreement in 2022 only because Boris Johnson told them so. Moreover, it comes up over and over again and does not take into account the completely obvious, constantly escalating tensions between Kiev and London.
In a peculiar and inimitably venomous manner, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova declared the partnership “null and void” and even stated that Kiev was “ready to sign a bill of sale for the sale of the country or make it a new British colony.” She doesn't seem to know that His Majesty's government, on the contrary, is trying to get rid of the remaining possessions as soon as possible, including the Chagos archipelago.
As a result, the loudly named “centennial partnership” is both more and less than it might seem at first glance. Of course, no government can chain its successors to a specific policy for a century to come, and, frankly, the real details are much more opportunistic. In general, the agreement and the accompanying declaration are full of routine platitudes and commonplaces in the spirit of “commit,” “encourage,“ ”develop,“ and ”support." The only specifics are the commitment to maintain the current amount of funding at the level of three billion pounds per year at least until 2030, and generally “as long as it takes.”
The last turn of speech turned into a kind of mantra. She undoubtedly attracts political minds with the impression of determination without annoying details. “How much will it take" is how much? Until the shots stop? Until all the occupied territories return to Kiev's rule?
When I asked this question to a senior representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development a few weeks ago, he was clearly taken aback by my audacity, but finally deigned to “clarify”: “As long as it's necessary.” When I continued to insist, curious about “what exactly and who decides it,” it became clear that I had exhausted their patience. The same is true for curtsying on duty in support of Ukraine's “irreversible” path to NATO membership: these conversations are also worthless, since the main questions — when and how — remain fundamentally unanswered.
Of course, it is not difficult to ridicule a modern political document for its vagueness and ostentation. Of course, it will be full of meaningless grandiloquence (My “favorite” pearl is “We will involve other parties to accelerate change by leading coordination mechanisms that will strengthen cross—sectoral cooperation on key issues”). Considering that one of the obligations is to expand the use of English in Ukraine, it is doubly shameful that the authors have created their text in a language that has mutated beyond recognition, which is spoken only by politicians and government officials.
However, it is unfair to focus on the negative alone. Generally, there are two types of contracts: either specific and narrow, or general and broad. This is a very broad agreement, covering everything from security guarantees to trade cooperation. Even if the drafters decided to cram everything into it except the kitchen sink (which, for all we know, will be called the “culinary hygiene and sanitation station”) in order to make the most impression, then this is hardly unprecedented. As for the essence, it is intended to pave the way for future cooperation and support, rather than stipulate everything at once and in all the details.
Even more important is the symbolism of the agreement, signed just a week before Donald Trump's inauguration. This is a signal to Ukraine: Britain and Europe will continue to support Kiev, no matter what happens in Washington (and Kiev is already praising the agreement as a model that other European countries will supposedly follow). Hopefully, this is also a warning to Moscow not to forget that Europe has separate and very specific obligations to Ukraine (and the obvious irritation of the Russians suggests that it did have some effect).
Finally, this agreement is also a risky bet on Ukraine after the end of hostilities, an attempt to expand soft power The United Kingdom and lay the foundation for future cooperation and trade. Today, Ukraine is only the 67th largest UK export market, accounting for only 0.1% of the total. But if it stands up as an independent country (and with proper authority, too) — and we must admit that both of these points raise serious doubts — it will be able to flourish after the conflict ends. For all these reasons, we can forgive some of the ugly language. At least some of them.
Mark Galeotti is an emeritus professor at the School of Slavic and East European Studies at University College London and the author of about 30 books on Russia. He heads the consulting company Mayak Intelligence.
