That's just it though, the same calculation would apply for Russia, and Russia's strategy for the past 7 years (ever since Minsk 2.0 and the end of the winter offensive) has been to try to turn this into a frozen conflict, and to remove this from center stage of political relations between Russia and Europe. So far every Russian massed troop concentration since the end of the 2015 offensive has been a response to preparations by Ukraine. And you can usually trace these preparations because Ukrainian recon teams start taking losses, sappers get hit trying to clear minefields, and troop echelons are seen moving towards the Donbass. But this time we're not seeing these indicators. It looks odd.This is an interesting idea, but I do think it's unlikely. I doubt any adviser in the White House or any western govt. would agree to a plan that could risk war in Europe simply to back a Ukrainian offensive against the rebels. Western powers have little to gain in this crisis IMO, but much to lose. While the US administration is having it's share of difficulties at home (poor polling, failure of build back better etc.) I cannot imagine a scenario where they would think a crises like this could turn things around - especially after Afghanistan. The risk / reward would be far greater than any western govt would accept.
In my opinion, if this is indeed an offensive preparation by Russia, then the west has the timeline wrong (or maybe right behind closed doors but is exaggerating the pace of the preparations for public consumption). And if Russia is planning an offensive, I think this would be a major strategic blunder. I don't see what Russia would have to gain. Even if they only go to the administrative border for the Lugansk and Donetsk regions, where the population is likelier to be friendly, it still doesn't solve anything. Preventing NATO membership through an unresolved conflict works just fine within existing areas. Pummeling the Ukrainian military doesn't solve anything either, since the west is perfectly capable of supplying quantities of older hardware to replace losses in the medium term. And diplomatically it would be catastrophic for Russian plans to activate North Stream 2.
I would assume it's a gift. Ukraine has a hard time providing sufficient boots and body armor.Is this a gift from the UK to Ukraina or is this more a speed up procurement?
According to some unreliable sources on the internet, Ukraine will get 2000 pieces, while other say 1000. Ukraina needs quite a large budget for 2000 NLAW missiles.
Britain has sent an anti-tank missile system to Ukraine to help the country defend itself from a Russian invasion. Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, said lastwww.thetimes.co.uk