British military leaders are “heads” of the “anti-Putin coalition”
British soldiers have been in Ukraine since 2015
by Multipolar
(9 May 2025) (CH-S) Contrary to all public assurances, it can now be considered certain that British military leaders have played an extremely active role in arming Ukraine since 2015, according to the independent news portal “multipolar”.
London’s policy outside the EU, but within Europe and NATO, is notable for its particularly escalatory stance. It was also Boris Johnson’s intervention that contributed to the breakdown of the peace talks in Istanbul in the spring of 2022 by Ukraine.
* * *
observers believe ... (Picture Wikipedia)
(multipolar). An article in the British daily newspaper “The Times” reveals the deep involvement of Western military leaders in the war in Ukraine.1 The newspaper particularly emphasises the “crucial role of British military leaders in Ukraine”. The involvement of NATO countries in military operations such as the Ukrainian offensive in 2023 and the deployment of their own soldiers in Ukraine has always been denied by the respective Western governments. “The Times” attributes responsibility for Ukraine’s defeats in the conflict with Russia to the Ukrainian military leadership. A report in the US newspaper “New York Times”2 reached similar conclusions at the end of March.3
According to “The Times”, Ukrainian officials described British military leaders as the “heads” of the “anti-Putin” coalition. Specifically, these are Admiral Tony Radakin, commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces, General James Hockenhull, chief of the Defence Staff, General Roland Walker, chief of the General Staff, and Lieutenant General Charles Stickland. Admiral Radakin is said to have led British efforts on Ukraine within his own government and personally resolved disputes between the US and Ukrainian military leadership. He was also the person who persuaded the US government under Joe Biden to get involved in Ukraine. General Walker was the “mastermind” behind British combat strategies. British military leaders, unlike their US counterparts, had the freedom to travel to Ukraine “whenever necessary” – in civilian clothing if necessary. “The Times” had already reported in early 2024 on Admiral Radakin’s central role in planning strategies to destroy Russian ships in the Black Sea.4
Britain’s role in the war runs deeper than many observers believed, as the country had the “courage” to send troops to Ukraine, “The Times” report continues. Specifically mentioned are “regular” British soldiers and “secretly” deployed troops. The former had already been stationed in Ukraine since 2015 to train Ukrainian soldiers in the use of weapons supplied by the UK. The secretly deployed troops, on the other hand, had equipped Ukrainian aircraft with British “Storm Shadow” cruise missiles and trained Ukrainian soldiers in their use.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) pointed out in February 20245 that British and French military personnel were involved in the targeting of cruise missiles. The British government subsequently denied that its own soldiers were involved in attacks with “Storm Shadow” missiles.6 Scholz was also sharply criticised by British government members and MPs for his statements. In June 2024, Russian President Vladimir Putin also pointed out7 that the use of short-range missiles and cruise missiles supplied to Ukraine by the US, the UK and France would not be possible without US satellite reconnaissance and trained Western personnel.
The article in the British “Times” also confirms the central role of the European US military leadership in Wiesbaden, which had already become clear in the “New York Times” report. According to “The Times”, Ukrainian General Valery Salushny said that Wiesbaden was “our secret weapon” in coordinating with partners on operational planning and determining the resources needed for the front lines. The US military garrison in Wiesbaden was also the “nerve centre” for Western arms deliveries to Ukraine.
“The Times” report ultimately confirms accounts of the course of the war in Ukraine that were already described in the “New York Times” and which blame Ukraine for the unsuccessful counteroffensive in 2023. The British are said to have urged the Ukrainians to launch the offensive early because Russia was “not strong.” However, the Ukrainians waited for further arms deliveries, allowing Russia to use the time to entrench itself. The decision to attack on two different sections of the front, thereby dividing forces, was made in Ukraine. The hesitant and slow advance of the Ukrainian armed forces under the then commander-in-chief Salushnyj “greatly frustrated” US officials. They called on the Ukrainians to “pick up the pace.” The Ukrainians, however, said that their Western allies had underestimated the “Russian obstacles” and “the realities of the modern battlefield.” The subsequent Ukrainian attack on the Russian region of Kursk took place8 without informing the US or other allies.
Source: https://multipolar-magazin.de/meldungen/0232, 17 April 2025.
(Translation “Swiss Standpoint”)
2 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/29/world/europe/us-ukraine-military-war-wiesbaden.html
3 https://multipolar-magazin.de/meldungen/0223
5 https://multipolar-magazin.de/meldungen/0017