In commercial economic warfare there is always money for continued war

Editor's note: Burnham says he wants the UK back in the EU eventually because "Brexit left the country with a harder deal than voters were promised, weaker growth and poorer immigration control", while separately claiming "Russia interfered in the 2016 referendum" (the UK's version of Russiagate); the two points have appeared in the same news cycle but the rejoining the EU comments themselves deceptively focus on the domestic economic and border results rather than the Ukraine war. If anyone believes that summary from mainstream news sources you are being deluded, especially by UK media sources. The underlying reason why this discussion is taking place now concerning the UK's PM Burnham (frontman) on Britain rejoining the EU is because the powerful aristocracy running the financial mechanisms related to central banks ultimately are coveting Russian resources. When that is placed in context the following news article will make sense. As this destruction of Ukraine continues Russia isn't going to stop until Ukraine is completely destroyed despite any alleged ongoing negotiations.

________  

Britain Has Committed £35 Billion to Ukraine While Its Own Economy Deteriorates

October 30, 2026 | By Martin Armstrong

Britain has now committed £35 billion, approximately $47 billion, in military, economic, and financial support for Ukraine since Russia's invasion in February 2022. Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced another £10 billion package on October 28, the largest single financial support package Britain has pledged to Kyiv. The British government continues promising to support Ukraine for as long as necessary, but nobody seems particularly concerned about how long British taxpayers can afford to finance these commitments. Britain is struggling with enormous sovereign debt, stagnant economic growth, deteriorating public services, and a population that has already endured years of inflation. Yet Westminster continues making financial promises to another government without establishing any clear limit on the total obligation.

The latest package includes £7 billion in economic assistance over three years and an additional £3 billion in export-finance capacity, primarily intended to support military equipment and reconstruction projects. The government has also announced £500 million in additional military assistance for Ukrainian air defenses ahead of winter. Burnham declared, "This is the largest ever package of funding for Ukraine from the UK," while promising continued support for as long as the conflict requires. Zelensky welcomed the announcement as evidence that Britain would not abandon Ukraine. But the question British taxpayers should be asking is how these commitments are being financed and what additional obligations may follow.

Britain has now committed £35 billion to Ukraine, an increase of £10 billion from the £25 billion reported before October 28. Of that total, £16 billion is allocated to military assistance, including £2.26 billion through the G7 loan arrangement, while another £12.6 billion covers economic assistance and financial commitments, and £6.5 billion represents export-finance capacity for reconstruction and defense projects.

Britain has also pledged at least £3 billion annually in military assistance through 2030–2031 and potentially beyond. Britain is already drowning in sovereign debt, struggling to finance its own public services, and watching the purchasing power of its citizens deteriorate. Nevertheless, its politicians continue making financial commitments to a foreign war that extend years into the future, leaving British taxpayers responsible for obligations they never directly approved and whose ultimate cost remains unknown.

Please go to Armstrong Economics to continue reading.

________

Britain to the rescue. Ukraine is about commercial economic warfare with Ukraine as proxy:

NATO in quiet panic as Russia increases lead in 'economy of war'

Strategic Culture Foundation suggests the real reason is that the EU ("Brussels club") is broke and want to dump U.S. technology on the battlefield in Ukraine in preference to Britain's. If this is correct that would explain the following. US interests want their continued cut of the action:

The Hegemonic Echo: The CIA's Command of Project Ukraine, the Starlink Proxy Rift, and the False Dichotomy of Neo-cons and Globalists

A $1.5 trillion budget should be enough to prosecute further wars:

The Pentagon's $1.5 trn bill: Inside Trump's trillion-dollar defence budget and why lawmakers are divided

This does not seem to be the case considering all of the above contrary evidence:

The war against the Slavs in Ukraine is drawing to a close

The Russians are always blunt in their assessments:

European leaders are 'political masochists' – Lavrov

Yes, Mr. Prime Minister: