Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit lordashcroft.com. Follow him on X/Facebook @LordAshcroft. 

Sir Keir Starmer has finally visited Kyiv, seven months after officially assuming office as Prime Minister. The visit was highly anticipated, particularly given that his Conservative predecessors often prioritised Ukraine—enduring the horrors of Russia’s brutal invasion—for their first foreign trips. In Whitehall, speculation swirled that the Prime Minister was simply waiting for the 100-Year Partnership Agreement with Ukraine to be finalised. Discussions surrounding the deal had dragged on since it was first proposed by the previous Conservative government in 2024.

According to sources on both sides, the main stumbling block was Ukraine’s insistence on a binding agreement that would create tangible frameworks and implement meaningful cooperation schemes to the benefit of both nations. Ukraine, as Europe’s second-largest country with vast natural resources, a burgeoning defence industry, and aspirations for NATO and EU membership, has much to offer. For Britain, historically Ukraine’s staunchest ally, this should have been a straightforward decision. Yet the Labour government appeared initially reluctant, favouring a non-binding memorandum that amounted to little more than aspirational language without concrete commitments.

Fortunately, progress was made just in time for Starmer’s visit, ahead of the geopolitical uncertainties posed by Donald Trump’s return to the White House. The Agreement has now been divided into two components: an actionable Treaty and an emblematic Declaration.

The UK-Ukraine 100-Year Partnership Agreement, recently signed in Kyiv, focuses on sustained and mutually beneficial cooperation in the military sphere. It encompasses initiatives ranging from support for the fighter jet coalition and industrial base enhancement to knowledge-sharing in drone production and defence innovation.

Notably, the agreement outlines plans for a flexible rapid response mechanism to address “challenges arising on each other’s territories.” While this may appear to echo the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF)—a group Ukraine has long sought to join—Ukraine remains excluded from JEF membership, largely due to geographic and structural objections from certain Northern European members, including the UK itself.

A significant highlight of the agreement is its emphasis on maritime security in the Black and Azov Seas through the implementation of a Maritime Security Strategy for Ukraine. The commitment to ensuring freedom of navigation and trade underlines Britain’s resolute support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, including the eventual restoration of control over the Kerch Strait, Crimea, and the devastated Azov coastal cities of Mariupol and Berdiansk. This pledge is a commendable demonstration of Britain’s enduring resolve.

Another vital aspect of the agreement is its provision for closer alignment between UK and Ukrainian military operations, aimed at enhancing interoperability – the ability of defence systems to work seamlessly together – and bolstering Ukraine’s NATO aspirations. Discussions reportedly include the potential deployment of British defence infrastructure in Ukraine, including military bases, logistics depots, and equipment storage facilities—a move that would cement Ukraine’s place in the Western security architecture. Although Starmer has cautiously hinted at the possibility of peacekeeping forces being deployed to Ukraine, it remains an open question.

Beyond military cooperation, the agreement seeks to prepare Ukraine for post-war reconstruction and integration into the Western economic community. The UK has pledged to support Ukraine in enacting critical reforms aimed at attracting private investment. Measures to strengthen investor confidence, combat corruption, and improve dispute resolution mechanisms—including through the application of English common law—are designed to help Ukraine rebuild its economy and create the conditions necessary for millions of displaced Ukrainians to return and contribute to the nation’s recovery.

This Agreement represents a pivotal moment for Ukraine. The UK, as a historic liberal democracy with a wealth of expertise, remains uniquely positioned to assist Ukraine as it works to rebuild its institutions and economy. Meanwhile, Ukraine, having shown unparalleled bravery and resilience during the 21st century’s most consequential conflict, faces the immense challenge of implementing reforms and recovering from the devastating consequences of war.

While the Agreement is undeniably significant, questions linger about whether this marks the beginning of a robust and proactive foreign policy under the Labour government—or its last act of international leadership before retreating into a more subdued role in global affairs. With the incoming Trump presidency, Britain must resist any temptation to retreat into absenteeism. Instead, it must embrace its position as a world leader, standing firm alongside its global allies and reinforcing its commitment to shared values of democracy and freedom.

Starmer’s visit and the signing of the 100-Year Partnership Agreement are critical steps forward.

But the UK’s reputation as a steadfast supporter of Ukraine—and its role as a guarantor of European security—must not end here. This is a moment for leadership, and resolve, ensuring that Britain remains a beacon of hope and strength in an increasingly fragile world. It must not be its final accord.

The post The UK-Ukraine 100-Year Partnership Agreement must mark the beginning of Britain’s international leadership, not its final accord appeared first on Conservative Home.