Lest we forget: British-Ukrainian allyship under Burnham
George Marshall and Cianan Sheekey • The Rosette's View • 4 minute read
Image: Lauren Hurley (Number 10) / Flickr
Embedded Files
Four years after Russia first launched its invasion of Ukraine back in 2022, it can be easy to forget the hardship the Ukrainian people have been plunged into. Amidst the wrath of Trump in the White House, incessant UK political change, wartime economic difficulty at home, and attention being (rightly) placed on events in Palestine since October 2023, the extraordinary act of resistance Ukraine has endured is not always fully recognised. As political priorities have shifted, we have seen falling aid both this year and last. Yet, as Ukrainian Independence Day was marked on the 24th of August, the British people (and many around the world) were reminded of the conflict’s suffering, turbulence, and technological developments.
As we grapple with pressures at home and abroad, one thing must remain clear: Britain's support for Ukraine cannot waver, for its survival is essential to Europe’s security, as so many have made clear. With a new government now in place, we can be thankful to know that Burnham understands this like his predecessors, with his first foreign visit as Prime Minister to Kyiv on Ukrainian Independence Day signalling continuity and sustained support. Burnham’s speech in the Ukrainian capital reinforced this, stating that “[Britain] kept the flame of European freedom alive in the 20th century, [Ukraine] hold that flame in the 21st”.
In Burnham’s wake and as the Labour Party attempts to rewrite its wrongs of the past two years, it has been easy (and somewhat preferable) to dismiss Starmer. Yet Starmer’s “unwavering support” for Ukraine can be seen as one of the biggest successes of his premiership, as with much of his foreign policy. From a holistically successful management of an unruly White House, Starmer kept us out of Iran while signing deals with France and India, the former for border security and the latter for trade. With much emphasis placed on what Burnham should do, Starmer’s successes in this domain may encourage us to consider what elements of Starmer’s premiership should be brought forward into this Burnhamite era, and his handling of the Russo-Ukrainian war is undoubtedly one of them.
Image: Number 10 / Flickr
Perhaps the clearest indication of this is Burnham’s embrace of Starmer’s ‘Coalition of the Willing’. Far from abandoning the framework established under Starmer, the new Prime Minister has set out to use Britain's position at the core of the coalition to continue to stoke international solidarity and support. It is this support that has helped prevent Russian aggression from advancing further into Europe, and Burnham stepping up to this role on the international stage has maintained the image and reality of NATO's strength and unity.
Since 2022, British governments have committed a total of £25 billion of support for Ukraine, with £16 billion being military aid. This comes before the most recent development, where Burnham gave Ukraine the ability to manufacture long-range missiles domestically. We should be proud of the work Labour governments have been doing since 2024; whilst our own defence sector is in a challenging position, Starmer and now Burnham have been central on the world stage in supplying aid to Ukraine. Not even the most ardent Labour Party loyalists would claim they’ve had an unblemished record since being elected into office, but Ukraine is the through-thread of achievement, and rightly so. One could even say, given Johnson’s (politically convenient) “special” commitment to Ukraine, the issue has been a rare point of multilateral accomplishment for UK politics this decade.
However, as the conflict rages on with no end in sight, Burnham will be forced to navigate challenging hurdles surrounding the war. The most obvious is Donald Trump, who has in recent years been somewhat reluctant to continue aiding Ukraine. With Trump suggesting that Zelensky should cede some Ukrainian territory, Burnham will have to make careful, calculated political manoeuvres with Washington to ensure any settlement does not reward Russia for its aggression with land. Burnham should be willing to lobby Trump directly, making clear that a peace that forces Ukraine to surrender territory without meaningful guarantees for its future security simply won’t do. Given Trump’s oddly warm relationship with Putin, this will require some grit.
Burnham will have to make careful, calculated political manoeuvres with Washington to ensure any settlement does not reward Russia for its aggression with land
Still, if opportunities for peace talks do come about, Burnham should ensure that Ukraine is not pressured into accepting an agreement simply because its allies have grown tired of the conflict. Any negotiations must recognise Ukraine’s sovereignty and give it the security guarantees necessary to prevent Russia from simply rebuilding its forces and trying again. In this, the Prime Minister has inherited an unenviably difficult responsibility. He must maintain support for Ukraine while managing pressure from Trump, defending British interests while hopefully preparing for the possibility of peace; even if this can only be achieved by inducing a realist-style withdrawal by Kremlin forces. None of these objectives are mutually exclusive, but requires Britain to remain engaged rather than retreat as the war becomes less prominent in public attention.
The lesson of the past four years should be that Ukraine cannot be treated as yesterday’s crisis. This article is likely struggling with the same problem the Russo-Ukrainian war faces as a political crisis: apathy. You’ve heard all this before, one way or another, from political leaders and commentators alike, but that doesn’t erode the sanctity of the argument. Ukraine’s security remains intertwined with our own, and that of our continental partners. Starmer’s commitment to Ukraine was one of the areas where his government demonstrated that Britain could still exercise meaningful leadership abroad. Burnham now has the opportunity to prove that this was by no means an exception.
Britain should therefore continue to stand with Ukraine, continue to invest in its own defence, and continue to use its diplomatic influence to ensure that any eventual peace lasts, at all costs. If Burnham can achieve that, then his government will not simply have inherited Starmer’s Ukraine policy – it will have turned it into something capable of lasting beyond both men.
Starmer’s commitment to Ukraine was one of the areas where his government demonstrated that Britain could still exercise meaningful leadership abroad
The most powerful reason for Britain continuing to stand with Ukraine can be found amid our own history. We remember the soldiers of the First and Second World Wars for their remarkable sacrifice, but also the ideas that underpinned that sacrifice. Those soldiers fought just as much for freedom, sovereignty, and self-determination as they did for their beloved family and country. Our Ukrainian brothers and sisters are facing a comparable strife now, day after day. Their resistance is not merely the defence of territory, but the values European peace and security have been built upon. We honoured these principles in the past, and need to continue honouring them in the present.
Edit log
•Published: 12/09/26
Google Sites
Report abuse