British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced a 100-year partnership between their countries during a meeting in Kyiv on January 16. On the eve of Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 47th United States president, this was Starmer’s attempt to position Britain as Ukraine’s best friend at a time when Zelenskyy needs all the friends he can get. In truth, the 100-year partnership appears to offer nothing new.

Treaties are the circuitry that make relations between states function. Any VIP visit to another country prompts a scramble to agree deals that can be announced as a sign both countries are focused on strengthening their partnership. Since 1892, the United Kingdom has entered into over 15,000 treaties. This agreement with Ukraine must be seen in that light.

The UK and Qatar, for example, reached a number of agreements during the state visit of Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in December 2024, including a $1.3bn agreement on cooperation in fintech and green energy, plus a deal to increase joint funding of humanitarian projects.

Advertisement

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

Prime Minister Starmer and President Zelenskyy appeared sincere in their commitment to the “100-year partnership”. But that doesn’t make it meaningful. Both appear to be clutching for good news at a time when Western policy towards Ukraine seems set to change.

Newly inaugurated President Trump has set himself a target to end the Ukraine war in 100 days. Even if the new US administration continues some level of military support to Ukraine, it’s doubtful that it will match the enormous $175bn in support since the war started in 2022.

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

That leaves Ukraine’s third largest donor, and arguably its most ardent supporter – Britian –  to try and plug the growing gap in political, financial and military support for the country.

However, that simply won’t be possible.

By the standards of government spending, the £4 billion+ ($5bn) Britain has given to Ukraine each year since 2022 is fairly small.  It is, in fact, tiny compared to what the Americans gave, and still nothing much in comparison with the more generous payments that were made by the Germans.

Advertisement

Also, there is no more money in the British pot to give, however much Prime Minister Starmer might will it.

The current Labour government has been rocked by bad news on the economy since it came to power in July 2024.  With UK government debt having crept above 100 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)  and following a record spike in the interest the UK pays on its government borrowing, Starmer had to warn the public of potentially ruthless cuts to public services while he was in Ukraine.

Following a badly handled cut to winter fuel payments for old people, the Labour government seems on the verge of possibly cutting disability benefits.

That’s bad news for British people and also for Zelenskyy in Kyiv.

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

But with Trump pushing for ceasefire talks between Ukraine and Russia, and as economic bad news piles up in Britain, UK government spending on Ukraine won’t stay off-limits forever.

On this basis, and despite the eye-catching title, little in last week’s 100-year partnership announcement was new.  The UK and Ukraine already agreed a 568-page political, free trade and strategic partnership agreement in 2020 that was finally laid before parliament shortly before war broke out, in January 2022.

The strategic dialogue announced last week was included in the 2020 Treaty.  The £3bn ($3.7bn) in yearly military funding has been in place since the start of the war and the £2.2bn ($2.7bn) loan was agreed in June 2024 within the G7’s Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration loan of $50bn for Ukraine.

Advertisement

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

There were no big reveals.  No wow moments.

Just a big dose of “So what?”

Britain can’t afford to provide Ukraine with more funding.

That might change in 100 years, but it won’t change any time soon.

His Majesty’s Government also won’t write a cast-iron commitment to provide £3bn in yearly military support to Ukraine for 100 years.  No government on Earth would do that.

Starmer’s positioning of this support “for as long as it takes” just gives him an off-ramp to cut spending when a Trump-brokered ceasefire is agreed.

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

Upon a Trump-brokered ceasefire, the need for foreign handouts should reduce, at least in theory.

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

There is no guarantee that a future British government might not ditch this agreement on the basis that it is a potentially costly political millstone.

Advertisement

The 100-year agreement is merely a political stunt.  It’s a breathless attempt by Starmer to show that the UK can prop up flagging Western support for Ukraine at a time when Trump – with whom by all accounts he has a dreadful relationship – is about to reassert much-needed realism into Ukraine policy.

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