London fireworks at sea

The Kremlin is attempting to solve a significant strategic issue in its own backyard: how trustworthy and reliable are the assurances for the agreement's implementation in the current Ukrainian and British governments, as well as its ability to extend it to future governments of these two nations? What effect will the potential signing of a long-term ceasefire deal in the conflict in Ukraine have on this process is the more crucial question.

Moscow's reaction

In response to the new 100-year partnership agreement between Kiev and London, Russian officials have stated that any deployment of British military equipment in Ukraine under this agreement will cause concern in Moscow. Meanwhile, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has warned about the possibility of British military bases in Ukraine, stressing:

“Given that Britain is a NATO member state, the advancement of its military infrastructure towards our borders is certainly a rather worrying element. In any case, this issue requires further analysis.”

But the second position of the Russians was taken by Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry of the country. Zakharova called this partnership propaganda (unreliable).

The combination of the positions of the two Russian officials shows that Moscow has received guarantees from other NATO members, led by the United States, regarding the 100-year strategic partnership agreement between London and Kiev. However, it is still too early to judge this.

An independent or dependent variable on the Ukrainian ceasefire?

Undoubtedly, the conclusion of the ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine could directly affect the 100-year strategic partnership agreement between Kiev and London. Some analysts even say that the Russians will consider one of the conditions for concluding the ceasefire agreement to be the ineffectiveness and even cancellation of this agreement.

Meanwhile, the main concern of the Ukrainians regarding the conclusion of the aforementioned long-term agreement is focused on the post-war period in Ukraine. During his talks in Kiev, Zelensky noted that he had discussed with Starmer about Kiev's desire to deploy the Guards Western peace in Ukraine has been discussed since the end of the war with Russia.

However, Starmer preferred to speak more generally on this issue! The British Prime Minister has not even specified whether he intends to send his country's military forces to Ukraine (under the pretext of protecting a peace treaty that has not yet been concluded)!

The controversial issue of the Sea of Azov

One of the potential challenges that this strategic pact could create for Moscow is related to the Sea of ​​Azov and its geostrategic position in the Russian periphery. Accordingly, Moscow has a "negative" view of the prospects for British cooperation with Ukraine in the Sea of ​​Azov, especially since the Kremlin officials consider this sea to be part of their country's territory.

The Sea of ​​Azov is surrounded by the southwestern regions of Russia, areas of southern Ukraine that Russia seized during the war, and the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014. Obviously, the more London focuses on the Sea of ​​Azov, the more sensitive the Russian side will be towards it. More importantly, Russian officials will put the formal annexation of the Sea of ​​Azov to their territory (like Crimea) on the agenda.

According to official data and information, the London-Kiev strategic pact obliges the parties to cooperate on defense issues, especially in the field of maritime security, to counter Russian activities in the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the Sea of ​​Azov. The situation will become more complicated when the Russians challenge the major components of the agreement in ceasefire negotiations with the United States and Ukraine.

The Remarkable Passivity of NATO Members

One of the issues that has attracted attention in recent days is the passivity and special silence of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) towards the recent treaty. It seems that many members of this treaty are not willing to go along with London's possible adventures in Russia's surroundings.

In addition to Hungary, Bulgaria, Austria, Spain and Italy, the two countries of Germany and France also have a skeptical view towards the activation of Article 5 of the NATO Charter in the event of a naval and military conflict between Russia and the UK. In such circumstances, the silence of NATO members becomes more justified than ever. Meanwhile, the new US President Trump will probably also enter this potential conflict as a major player in order to end the war in Ukraine as soon as possible.