‘Are We Prepared?’ Doubts Swirl Around UK PM Starmer’s Plan for ‘Boots on the Ground’ in Ukraine

British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is facing growing questions about his pledge to deploy boots on the ground and planes in the air over Ukraine when the UK Armed Forces has seen the number of soldiers dwindle to the lowest since the Napoleonic era and other services hollowed out.

After months of declining support amid domestic failures, Prime Minister Starmer has recently attempted to recast himself as an international leader through the war in Ukraine. The leftist PM has joined with French President Emmanuel Macron — who has also suffered domestically over the past year — in offering up their soldiers to “protect the peace” in case of a conflict-ending deal between Kyiv and Moscow.

Following the summit of European leaders in London on Sunday, Starmer doubled down on his pledge for “boots on the ground, planes in the air,” despite no other country yet coming forward to join the so-called “coalition of the willing”.

Deep questions remain about the readiness of the British military to take on the monumental task of keeping the peace between the much larger militaries of Russia and Ukraine.

It also remains to be seen if Prime Minister Starmer will put his plan of deploying troops into Ukraine to a vote in the parliament. With both France and the UK facing budget crises, convincing their citizens to finance a potentially open-ended and deeply expensive military operation on the other side of the continent may prove difficult politically.

Such an operation would also put Paris and London in the position of actively defending another nation’s borders while failing to police their own against illegal migration.

MP Rupert Lowe of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party said Sunday that he has “lots of questions”, asking the prime minister to outline: “Where would troops be deployed? How many? How many as part of the overall mission? For how long? What percentage of our combat ready force would be dedicated to it? How much ammunition do we have? How much equipment? How many active tanks, planes? How quickly could more be manufactured if required? How much would we need to import? How much would that all cost?”

Lowe also questioned whether Britain currently has enough military resources to sustain a protracted deployment in Ukraine and whether the military has had enough time to prepare for a potential operation.

In addition to asking if the government has any “exit strategy”, the Reform MP asked went on to ask what would happen should British troops be fired upon “accidentally or otherwise” and how long the could the UK military actually wage war against Russia.

“Are we prepared? I suspect the answer is a resounding no. Have the vast risks and dangers been properly considered? Again, I suspect the answer is no. I have deep, deep, deep reservations,” Lowe said.

The Reform MP has not been the only one to raise alarm bells over Stamer’s plan to deploy troops to the borders of the world’s largest nuclear power. Over the weekend, General Sir John McColl said that should peace break down Britain and do “not have the capabilities to be able to do that on its own.”

Perhaps recognising this reality, with the number of active British soldiers falling to just around 73,000, the lowest since the early 1800s, Prime Minister Starmer has said that any pan-European peacekeeping force in Ukraine would ultimately need the “backing” of the United States. Because European defence has ridden on the coat-tails of presumed indefinite American support for decades, many core war-fighting capabilities have been run down to save money.

While all European states have armies, their ability to operate sustainable away from their own depots without American logistics and air cover is questionable. NATO leaders have been warning about this problem and the high price it will take to rebuild fundamental capabilities, but beyond sabre-rattling there is very little political appetite to either add to taxes or to cut other spending to pay for defence.

This would mean that American troops would be obliged to come to the aid of UK or French troops and potentially be forced into direct engagement with Russian forces. The Trump administration has so far rejected making such a commitment, given putting NATO troops on the contact line with Russia risks sparking a ‘world war’.

Although Starmer has committed to a small increase of UK defence spending to 2.7 per cent of GDP, others, including the former head of the British military have argued that to sustain a large-scale operation in Ukraine, a commitment of up to 4 per cent could be needed. Even Starmer’s partner in the plan, President Macron suggested over the weekend that European nations should start to invest between 3 and 3.5 per cent of GDP on their defence.

Follow Kurt Zindulka on X: Follow @KurtZindulka or e-mail to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.