British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced the 100-year partnership at a meeting in Kiev on January 16. Ukraine’s best friend at the time Donald Trump was established as the 47th President of the United States, Zelenskyy needed all the friends he could get. In fact, this 100-year-old partnership appears to have nothing new to offer.

A treaty is a circuit that enables relationships between state functions. Any VIP visit to another country prompts a scramble to agree a deal, which could be announced as both countries focus on strengthening their partnership. Since 1892, Britain has concluded more than 15,000 treaties. This agreement with Ukraine must be viewed in this light.

For example, the UK and Qatar reached a number of agreements during the State Department visit of Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in December 2024, including $1.3 billion in fintech collaboration agreements and green energy collaboration agreements, as well as an agreement to increase co-funding of humanitarian projects.

Sometimes these agreements are driven by attitudes that are more energetic than others because they are eager to celebrate something. During my visit to Megawati Sukarnoputri in the summer of 2002, a cultural agreement was struck between the UK and Indonesia. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs reluctantly agreed to what it considered a meaningless document, knowing it was important to the Indonesian side.

Prime Minister Starmer and President Zelenskyy’s commitment to a “100-year partnership” appears to be sincere. But that doesn’t make sense. Both appear to be chasing good news at a time when Western policy toward Ukraine appears to be changing.

Newly minted President Trump has set a goal for himself End the war in Ukraine in 100 days. Even if the new U.S. administration continues some level of military support for Ukraine, it is doubtful it will be related to the huge $1.75 billion in support Since the war started in 2022.

Ukraine’s second-largest donor – Germany – has halved in the past year, and leaders are working on $3 billion in additional support packages In the lead-up to the election.

That leaves Ukraine’s third-largest donor and arguably its most ardent supporter – the British – trying to bridge the growing gap in political, financial and military support for the country.

However, this is simply not possible.

By the standards of government spending, the £4bn-plus the UK has donated to Ukraine each year since 2022 is rather small. Realistically, that’s still not much compared to what the Americans paid, compared to the more generous payments the Germans made.

Plus, there’s no more money in the British pot to pay, no matter how much Prime Minister Starmer does.

Since coming to power in July 2024, the current Labor government has been shocked by bad news. UK government debt gradually exceeds 100% of gross domestic product (GDP) Starmer was forced to warn the public after a record surge in UK government borrowing payments brutal tailoring He provided public service while in Ukraine.

The Labor government appears to be on the verge of potentially cutting disability benefits after a serious crackdown on winter fuel payments for the elderly.

This is bad news for the British people and bad news for Zelenskyy in Kiev.

Unlike the US, UK policy towards Ukraine enjoys strong cross-party parliamentary support. The UK mainstream media has also insulated any criticism of Ukraine spending from both the Conservative and Labor governments.

But as Trump pushes for ceasefire talks between Ukraine and Russia, and as British government spending in Ukraine emerges, economic bad news will never remain in scope forever.

On that basis, despite the eye-catching title, last week’s 100-year partnership announcement was virtually new. The UK and Ukraine had agreed to a 568-page Political, Free Trade and Strategic Partnership Agreement in 2020, which was finally submitted to parliament in January 2022, shortly before the war broke out.

The strategic dialogue announced last week is included in the 2020 Treaty. The £3 billion ($3.7 billion) annual military funding has been in place since the war began, with a £2.2 billion ($2.7 billion) loan agreed in June 2024 G7’s Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration Loan $5 Billion for Ukraine.

The only new funding is a piecemeal £40m to support the development of small and medium-sized enterprises in Ukraine’s bankrupt economy, which will be funded from the UK’s development aid budget.

No big reveal. There was no wow moment.

Just a big dose of “So what?”

The UK is unable to provide more funding to Ukraine.

This may change in 100 years, but not anytime soon.

Nor will His Majesty’s Government write a cast-iron commitment to provide £3bn of annual military support to Ukraine for 100 years. No government on earth would do that.

Starmer’s positioning of this support as “just the time it takes” has led him to increasingly cut spending as he agrees to a ceasefire on the Trump experience.

A ceasefire in Ukraine will put pressure on Kyiv to reduce its massive military spending, which accounts for 50% of government spending and a quarter of GDP annually.

In a ceasefire that passes Trump, the need for foreign handouts should diminish, at least in theory.

In any case, there is no point in including 100 years in the name of this agreement since states can withdraw from the treaty at any time. In recent years, Russia and the United States have withdrawn from several nuclear weapons control treaties, including the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the New Start Treaty, to reduce and limit strategic offensive weapons.

There is no guarantee that a future UK government will not abandon this agreement because it is a potentially expensive political millstone.

The 100-year deal is just a political stunt. A breathless attempt by Starmer to show the UK can bring much-needed realism back to Ukraine policy at a time when Trump – who has a terrible relationship with everyone else – .

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.