Crowds gather to view destruction in an Odesa residential area that included a university student residence (photo: Anna Beria, with thanks).
We are possibly reaching the culmination point of Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine.
After almost five years of warfare, Ukrainian resilience is being put ever more to the test. Ukraine’s forces are edging forward, regaining lost land in the Donbas from Russia’s armed forces. Not winning on the ground, Putin has declared unlimited warfare on Ukraine’s civilian population to terrorise them into submission, destroying critical infrastructure and causing mayhem as winter approaches.
Ukraine’s position is being further undermined much more overtly by Donald Trump, who has just now lifted sanctions on Russian diesel in an attempt to save his neck on the US mid-term election due on 3rd November. His showdown with President Zelenskyy over this issue had led to the US denying Ukraine access to Starshield, the military version of Starlink, in a move which one Ukrainian officer said is “comparable to a nuclear strike against us”. Trump seems to have backed down but nobody knows if it will be cut again and for how long, as Trump strives to end the war on Russia’s terms so he can pursue his business deals with Putin.
Money is critical factor for all sides. The EU and Ukraine have agreed that Ukraine’s needs can be met for the rest of this year. The Ukraine parliament has just passed some anti-corruption measures which should help the Ukraine’s government’s credibility in being able to use international assistance. But 2027 is underfunded. The ascendance of pro-Russian parties across much of the EU poses a threat to future budgetary support to Ukraine. French presidential front-runner Marine Le Pen has said France will stop funding Ukraine if she becomes President. Even if US Democrats win both Houses of Congress, it is by no means assured that the US will restore funding for Ukraine, which Donald Trump can stall even if it were to pass both Houses. The outlook for 2027 is uncertain.
That is why it is more critical than ever that Russia’s frozen assets are permanently confiscated and fully deployed in support of Ukraine. This would put them out of reach of Trump’s business schemes with Russia if a settlement ceasing the war were to be reached in Putin’s favour.
If Ukraine were to fall, it would have profound implications for the UK and its European Union partners.
Western Ukraine could remain free for a while but its population would be demoralised and exhausted, obliged to hold its postponed presidential and parliamentary elections under relentless covert pressure from Russia to elect a political class which it can manipulate. Trump would push Europe to return frozen Russian assets (his business associates Witkoff and Kushner have already suggested transferring them to US jurisdiction, which has thankfully been rejected by EU envoys) which, if the UK and Europe were forced to accede to one day as part of a “peace settlement”, would revive Russia’s broken economy and allow Russian to push forward with new foreign adventures with a fully-mobilised battle-hardened army.
Putin is already testing NATO’s resolve with hybrid attacks in Europe which are becoming bolder every day. Now drones are regularly flying into NATO allies’ airspace to test NATO’s reaction. Cargo ships in Bulgarian and Romanian territorial waters are being hit. Polish Prime Minister Tusk expects a mass casualty incident to occur as part of Russia’s escalation of the war.
All to say that the UK’s armed forces must be funded properly right now to be ready in case kinetic war with Russia breaks out already in 2027.
This is especially true as the UK leads the Joint Expeditionary Force, a multinational land, sea and air operation outside NATO, excluding US troops, covering the Arctic and High North, North Atlantic and the Baltic Sea region, with British troops based in Estonia. If there were to be any limited or major incursion by Russia into the Baltics, it would be obliged to react, thereby putting the UK automatically on course for war with Russia.
Given this is a growing possibility as we approach 2027, it seems ridiculous that we are spending increases in our defence expenditure mainly on systems which will only be ready by the mid-2030’s. Instead, we must ensure with utmost speed that our existing limited numbers of troops are properly trained in modern warfare, equipped with latest weapons technology and significant stocks of ammunition. If our armed forces are not given adequate means to protect themselves, the UK government will need to take full responsibility for the level of British and other nations’ casualties that will ensue under its command.
Let us be honest. Despite the fine words spoken by Supreme Allied Commander Europe US General Alexus Grynkewich at the Warsaw security summit this week, Trump is US Commander-in-Chief and will not allow the United States military to fight if NATO countries’ borders are further violated. In this respect, this assumption, central to the UK 2025 Strategic Defence Review, needs considerable reformulation. And the UK needs to be ready to take on its responsibilities, and not just with words.
* George Cunningham is Chair of Lib Dem Friends of Armed Forces and Honorary President of Lib Dem Overseas. He was formerly an European External Action Service official, based in Brussels.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Methodism at Horton, Gower
A promotional film for Northampton from 1965
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Graham Evans
Peter Davies
PM
David S
Pawel Urbanski
21 Comments
Excellent – and we have to accept that this can only be funded by tax rises.
Where’s the funding going to come from for this rearmament to save ourselves from the Russian hordes . At the moment it’s conscript army is bogged down on the wrong side of the Dniepro river. I mean it’s not that appealing for British squaddies to sacrifice their lives in a field in a Baltic state they’ve probably never heard of. The EU is still buying Russian LNG. I’d be more convinced if governments matched the rhetoric when it’s comes to funding the Kremlins coffers.
Totally agree. Everything seems to be coming to a head and it will now require resolve and a speeding up of rearmament. While attention is on Trump and Ukraine,Iran is now reescalating attacks in the Strait of Hormuz . Rockets supplied by Russia with guidance system from China. The aim is to force up oil prices before the US elections.
I respectfully disagree with George Cunningham. Rearmament inevitably leads to war (well spending all that money and not using it) and when a nuclear armed opponent is backed into a corner, to the use of nuclear bombs.
There is an alternative. Sanctions on Putin were beginning to cause severe difficulties to the Russian economy and could have been tightened further until the economic pressure forced Putin to change track. But oh no. The Europeans are still buying LPG from Russia and now Trump has given Russia an even bigger economic lifeline that will ensure they can fight on.
Sanctions don’t work wail the warmongers, but if they are applied half heartedly and then relaxed, then of course they won’t. Self fulfilling prophesy really.
Warmongering and rearmament will make war more likely with all its intendent risks. Sanctions applied properly and consistently could end the conflict in Ukraine by ending Russia’s ability to spend on arms.
Instead we see Ukraine vilified by Trump as he seeks anyone to blame for oil price rises except himself.
1. What is Mr Cunningham’s group’s view on Elon Musk’s Tesla and Starlink internet products given what’s currently going on in the Ukraine with missile speeds ?
2. Mr McGrath, “Excellent….. by tax rises” ……. which taxes, Simon, by how much, and which services would be cut as a consequence ?
3. To be honest I’d never previously heard of Mr Cunninham’s organisation. How many members does it have and are it’s office holders elected ?
Nick Taylor. You are wrong. The 1930s saw disarmament and looks what happened. If both sides disarm good but we don’t see Putin disarming.
@ Tim Rogers
Actually, it was rearmament in the 1930s that pulled countries out of the Great Depression and proved that government deficit spending would boost the economy.
@ Tim Rogers, “Nick Taylor. You are wrong”.
Sorry, Tim, but I’m afraid you’re wrong (on both label and substance).
‘Nick Taylor’ is Dr Mick Taylor, and you’re also wrong on the historical substance.
British rearmament in the 1930s is generally divided by historians into three distinct phases: disarmament (1919–1932), meeting defence deficiencies (1933–1936), and full-scale rearmament (1936–1939). Britain declared war on 3 September, 1939 three years after full scale rearmament started in 1936.
Governments here do not have the guts to spend on Defence and let other things go. This is 1938 all over again and we have to react as we did then. My father, a leftwing Socialist was building anti aircraft sites on the Kent coast. To be fair we are active building submarines at Barrow etc but, forgive the pun, it is a drop in the ocean of our overall needs. Defence Bonds are a great notion, they worked in the war, the public might rally again. MPS must tell the public that social welfare is no longer top of the agenda
Jana. You are perfectly correct to say rearmament pulled the world out of depression,though Roosevelt’s New Deal played a part. My point is that when you have a major nation looking , through a grievance,to bully smaller nations they will seize the opportunity. Putin has publicly stated his desire and aim to Reform the Soviet Union, including the Baltic states.
“Actually, it was rearmament in the 1930s that pulled countries out of the Great Depression and proved that government deficit spending would boost the economy.”
Indeed. It’s called military keynesianism. The United States has been running its economy on a military keynesian basis since the end of WWII. That was partly what NATO was all about – they produce the weapons, everyone else buys ’em, and the NATO requirements for interoperability help to ensure the big US companies get the big contracts.
One of the interesting things about the EU trade rules is that while individual member states can’t do trade deals with non-member states, there is (of course) an exception for defence/security/weapons (Article 346 TFEU). This is why member states are all doing deals with non-member states to develop new kit. It allows them to reindustrialise without having to worry about pesky EU rules… so Italy and Germany can do a nice deal with the UK and Japan without any interference from the Commission or the Court of Justice.
Time we detached ourselves as much as possible from US manufactured weapons. F35s may not have actual “kill switches” but need regular software updates. The ballistic missiles for our nuclear deterrent are kept in USA. If they can turn Starshield off for Ukraine, they can do similar to the UK.
Agreed. It should have started 10 years ago. The dawdling since 2022 is unforgiveable.
“If our armed forces are not given adequate means to protect themselves, the UK government will need to take full responsibility for the level of British and other nations’ casualties that will ensue under its command.”
Does this include the billions likely to die if two or more nuclear-armed powers get into a hot war with each other at all, regardless of precisely how many bullets their conventional troops have, or do they not count?
Scare mongering of the highest order.. Russia is bogged down fighting in a country on it’s border.. There is absolutely no way Russia could sustain a wider conflict..
The situation and weaponry in the 1920’s/30’s was completely different and, if everything goes crazy and a nuclear war starts, re-armament will have been a waste of time anyway..
@ expats Spot on, expats.
Not usually a fan of expats, but I find myself in complete agreement with him.
My point remains. If you don’t let sanctions work by abandoning them (à le Trump or by Europe buying Russian LPG and supplying weapons parts to Russia) then you are abandoning the peaceful way of ending conflicts. The result will be wholly unnecessary war and as expats rightly says the risk of a nuclear conflagration grows and God help us all if that happens. I firmly believe that in extremis both Trump and Putin will press the nuclear button because they’re both quite mad.
@ Mick Taylor “both Trump and Putin will press the nuclear button because they’re both quite mad”.
Interesting to note the Democrat contender in Georgia is currently unravelling Trump’s mates who are benefitting from the recent diesel deal with Putin. Follow the money is always a good precept whilst Mutual self-destruction is never a good idea.
Sanctions should absolutely continue, but the idea that Britain should not rearm is to repeat the mistakes of the 1930s.
Appeasement is not an option.
@Tristan Ward 18th Oct ’26 – 10:43pm….Sanctions should absolutely continue, but the idea that Britain should not rearm is to repeat the mistakes of the 1930s.
Appeasement is not an option..
The UK/EU are NOT into appeasement but, why resort to an arms race, when increasing sanctions can do more harm to Russia’s ability to wage war than military threats?
Thank you for all your remarks concerning my article.
Lib Dem Friends of Armed Forces is an official Affiliate Organisation (AO) of the Liberal Democrat party with 170 members. Its officials are elected once a year.
At autumn conference, our party committed to NATO’s target of 3.5% of GDP on core defence expenditure by 2035, plus 1.5% on defence infrastructure. However my article calls on the redeployment of existing defence funds from projects which will only come to fruition in 10 years’ time to ensuring our armed forces are properly equipped now. Exactly the opposite is currently happening. In fact we are projected to have less weapons, equipment, ships and a smaller air force by 2029 than at the start of this Labour government in 2024.
Putin has just ordered Russia’s armed forces to expand to 2.44 million personnel, including 1.55 million active servicemen, adding 15,500 troops. This battle-hardened army will be available for other action once the Ukraine war has reached some form of conclusion.
Russia is not alone, having the support of China. Iran and North Korea, which is reported to have provided 50,000 troops so far. The Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reportedly said behind closed doors in Brussels, that China is not prepared to let Russia lose the war. Therefore it is not just Russia we are up against.
I agree entirely that sanctions should continue to be tightened and countries called out who avoid their full implementation.