United Kingdom To Unleash Its ‘Harshest’ Sanctions On Russia Yet—But Will They Bite? How Trouble Is Brewing For Keir Starmer At Home. Shamed For Volunteering British Troops In Ukraine

As the United Kingdom prepares to roll out what it claims to be the most severe package of sanctions against Russia since the early days of the Ukraine war, the geopolitical chessboard is undergoing critical shifts. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy has set the stage for a fresh wave of economic and political measures against Moscow, aimed at further eroding Russia’s military machine and cutting off revenue streams that fuel the ongoing devastation in Ukraine.

Turning the Screws on Moscow

Lammy’s announcement, set for Monday, comes as the UK marks three years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. “This is the time to turn the screws on [Vladimir] Putin’s Russia,” Lammy declared, emphasizing Britain’s unwavering support for Ukraine. The UK has already sanctioned 1,900 individuals and organizations linked to Putin’s government, but this new package aims to hit even harder.

However, will these sanctions truly deliver a decisive blow to Russia’s war effort, or will they be another symbolic gesture in an increasingly complex global power play?

UK Sanctions

The timing of the UK’s sanctions package is crucial, coming as the United States, under President Donald Trump, appears to be taking a different approach to ending the war. Trump in the first step taken, has sidelined Ukraine and its European allies from key negotiations with Moscow, a move that has alarmed many in Europe.

“This is a critical moment for Ukraine, Britain, and all of Europe,” Lammy stressed, adding that the UK would work with the US and European partners to achieve a sustainable and just peace. However, he made it clear that any resolution must include Ukraine at the table—a direct counter to Trump’s approach.

Beyond sanctions, Britain is stepping up its financial and military commitment to Kyiv. Lammy confirmed an annual pledge of £3 billion ($3.78 billion) in aid and stated that the UK is “ready and willing” to provide troops as part of a post-war peacekeeping force if necessary.

Starmer’s Ukraine Plan

Even as Britain strengthens its stance against Russia, domestic tensions over the UK’s role in the conflict are mounting. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has openly expressed willingness to deploy British troops to Ukraine as part of a post-war peacekeeping force, a significant escalation of Britain’s involvement in the crisis.

Speaking on Sunday, Starmer acknowledged the gravity of the decision, stating, “I do not take lightly the responsibility that comes with potentially putting British servicemen and women in harm’s way.” But he insisted that ensuring long-term peace in Ukraine was vital to preventing further Russian aggression.

His comments, published in the Daily Telegraph, marked the first time he has explicitly discussed deploying UK peacekeepers. Starmer is set to discuss these plans with world leaders, including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, at a high-stakes summit in Paris.

While Britain and its European allies double down on supporting Ukraine, the Trump administration is taking a different route. Last week, Trump stunned NATO members and Ukraine by holding direct talks with Putin without consulting European leaders. His envoy, Keith Kellogg, later suggested that Ukraine and its European allies may not even have a seat at the negotiating table.

This divergence in approach is raising serious concerns in Europe. As US and Russian officials prepare to meet in Saudi Arabia to explore peace negotiations, Starmer is looking to position the UK as a critical bridge between the US and Europe. “Europe and America must continue to work closely together—and I believe the UK can play a unique role in making this happen,” Starmer said.

A Defining Moment for Europe’s Security

Starmer’s argument goes beyond Ukraine—it is about the very future of European security. “This is not only a question about Ukraine’s future. It is existential for Europe as a whole,” he warned. His remarks illustrate the broader stakes of the conflict – if Putin is not decisively stopped, Europe could be facing a prolonged era of instability.

But Trouble Brews at Home and Splits Wide Open

As UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer prepares to announce a fresh and aggressive package of sanctions against Russia, a new storm is gathering back home. With tensions between the US and Russia widening, Starmer’s continued support for Ukraine is drawing sharp criticism, not just from political adversaries but from concerned citizens who fear the risks of escalating British involvement in a seemingly unwinnable war.

The most controversial aspect? Starmer is reportedly ready to send a 30,000-strong peacekeeping force to Ukraine, despite Donald Trump openly advising Ukraine to “back down” and accept whatever deal Putin is willing to offer. Starmer’s stance, which aligns more with European allies than with the shifting US position, has triggered a debate over the UK’s long-term role in the conflict and its security priorities.

Donald Trump’s position on Ukraine has been clear – he wants the war to end, and he believes the best way to achieve that is through a swift settlement—one that likely benefits Russia more than Ukraine. The US president has reportedly indicated that the real prize in this negotiation is securing lucrative mineral deals with Ukraine, not ensuring Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Unlike previous American support, Trump is offering no concrete assurances, further unsettling European nations that have relied on US security guarantees for decades.

This brings us to a crucial question – Should the UK be investing more resources into a war that the US, under Trump, is seemingly washing its hands of? Britain’s army consists of approximately 80,000 troops, out of which nearly 10,000 are deemed unfit for service. Deploying 30,000 troops to Ukraine would leave the UK vulnerable at home, a concern that critics are quick to highlight.

Is This War Winnable?

For many, the writing is on the wall—this war cannot be won. Even if Trump’s peace deal secures him a Nobel Peace Prize, many believe stopping the war now is the only practical option. However, there’s also the counterargument – Can such a brokered peace be trusted?

European intelligence agencies suggest that if Putin finds a gap in NATO’s security, he may attack again within the next five years. This is where Trump’s statement, “take care of your own security and stop piggybacking on ours,” gains traction. Many European nations now see the need to strengthen their own military capabilities, NATO’s umbrella, rather than rely solely on United States.

Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron are scheduled to meet with Trump soon, and for many, this is the time to build bridges rather than burn them. Given the direction Trump is taking on Ukraine, working with him rather than turning him into an adversary may be the most strategic move for the UK.

The Last Bit.

As the United Kingdom unveils its toughest sanctions yet and gears up for a more direct role in securing Ukraine’s future, the coming weeks will determine whether Britain’s aggressive stance will make a real impact.

While it’s clear that Ukraine is unlikely to reclaim all of its lost territories through military means, the support it has received has at least stalled Russia’s advances—for now. If the war had been left unchecked, Russia might have taken the entire country by now.

This conflict, while costly, has also served as a wake-up call for Europe. It has forced NATO to reassess its security policies, and European countries are now realizing the necessity of standing on their own feet when it comes to defense.

With Starmer pushing forward with his aggressive sanctions and military support plan, he risks deepening divisions within the UK. Critics argue that he is prioritizing international alliances over domestic stability, while supporters claim he is taking a principled stand against Russian aggression.

As the geopolitical chessboard continues to shift—UK cannot afford to play this game alone. The choices Starmer makes in the coming months—whether to double down on support for Ukraine or recalibrate the UK’s stance in line with Trump’s vision—will define Britain’s role in its own security and global security.