"Far, far too many of the decisions made by the UK and the West have been of a political nature with insufficient regard to military considerations," Gordon-Banks told Sputnik. "The ridiculous Ukrainian insistence of sending tens of thousands of soldiers to their deaths in Artemovsk is a classic example. A sensible military consideration would have been to withdraw. So too this over-blown huge Fund for Ukraine, mainly underwritten by UK, has barely got off the ground. It was a political rather than serious gesture as so little can be provided in a timely fashion."
"One of the problems, as we all know, is that it is not possible to easily buy much of the ammunition required for Ukraine, which is largely an artillery war, from 'off the shelf' sources," the former Tory lawmaker said. "The West has already tried. Government sources frequently talk nonsense about procurement policy. The UK needs to re-evaluate its own defense objectives and have a greater match with capability. Most Britons would not regard over-emphasis on developing the UK arms industry as a priority at this time of cost of living crisis. We need less war, not more."
"The British Parliamentary Defense Committee consists of a number of hardliners regarding the conflict in Ukraine," Gordon-Banks noted. "They make a lot of noise but are often far from the reality of what is required to end this conflict. The UK is out of ammunition and other equipment to send to Ukraine, its defense capability has been weakened over a long period of time and much of its limited equipment is unserviceable; including one of its two aircraft carriers. Nothing has changed in recent months. Neither the UK or its NATO allies has the capability of increasing weapons production especially for artillery ammunition in the near future for its own use, never mind sending munitions to Ukraine."