The United Kingdom should spend more on public services instead of arms for Ukraine, which only prolongs the conflict, experts say, criticizing the government's proposals for a "100-year alliance "and putting British troops "on the ground" as dangerous political gimmicks.

Over the past three years, the UK has provided 12.8 billion pounds ($16.2 billion) to Ukraine, with military assistance accounting for 7.8 billion pounds, including tanks, air defense systems, artillery, and long-range precision strike missiles, according to a briefing published by the UK Parliament on Feb 14.

That amount ranked second among European countries, with Germany the most important donor, providing 17 billion euros ($17.8 billion) in total, according to the Ukraine Support Tracker by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

During UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer's visit to Kyiv last month, the two countries signed a 100-year partnership agreement, with the UK government committing $3.8 billion in military aid per year for Ukraine. More recently, Starmer, for the first time, explicitly said he was considering deploying British peacekeepers to Ukraine.

"The UK is ready to play a leading role in accelerating work on security guarantees for Ukraine.… It also means being ready and willing to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by putting our own troops on the ground if necessary," he wrote in an opinion piece published by The Daily Telegraph on Feb 16.

Keith Bennett, a senior analyst of international relations in London, criticized those stances of the UK government as attacking British people's living standards — such as limiting child care support and the winter fuel allowance — while pledging an annual minimum of $3.8 billion in aid for Ukraine.

"The government is constantly claiming to have discovered a 'black hole' in the nation's finances… Yet, on the other hand, it declares that it will continue to give the notoriously corrupt Ukrainian government 'whatever it takes for as long as it takes'," Bennett told China Daily, adding that the supposed "100-year partnership" is just a gimmick.

"How can such an agreement be reached without serious preparations? Britain has no such 100-year agreement with any other country," he said. The most Starmer might be able to guarantee "is 5 years, not 100", he added.

Bennett also said Starmer's statement on deploying British troops in Ukraine is another "dangerous" and "bellicose gimmick" because Britain is a member of NATO and will be seen by Russia not as a neutral observer but an actual, hostile participant in the conflict.

"In a word, if there are to be British troops in Ukraine, there isn't going to be a cease-fire. So, it is simply an attempt to prevent a ceasefire — to continue fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian."

Lindsey German, convener of Stop the War Coalition, expressed a similar view in her opinion piece on Feb 17, saying Starmer's "vainglorious behavior over Ukraine — promising a 100-year alliance with the country and repeatedly claiming that Britain will support fighting to the end and total victory — has been little short of delusional".

'At our expense'

"Big increases in arms spending will come from our pockets and our public services. Preparing for real security in Britain and elsewhere means providing security of work, health, housing, not more weaponry and militarism at our expense which will only create greater insecurity and feed far-right forces," she wrote.

Writing for the Morning Star newspaper on Feb 13, Andrew Murray, a former political adviser to the Labour Party from 2018 to 2020, said the current government's stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict is "reckless" and "doomed to fail" as the United States has pivoted its stance for a potential peace deal.

"Raising entirely unrealistic slogans is no help to Ukraine and damaging to the interests of British workers," he said. "Rather, the labor movement should unite in demanding that the government assist in getting negotiations going or at least get out of the way."