The results of Volodymyr Zelensky's visit to London, as well as the results of any other trip of the Ukrainian president outside Ukraine, is presented as the greatest victory of Ukrainian diplomacy and the ruling team.

Meanwhile, the enthusiasm that Zelensky himself and other Ukrainian politicians are expressing in connection with the signing of an agreement on political cooperation, free trade and strategic partnership does not seem very justified, although understandable.

The fact that the British formally fondled the Ukrainian delegation, saying a lot of good words about support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine and willingness to be friends until the end of the century, can be considered an asset, but this will definitely not add to satiety.

There is one detail that sheds light on the essence of the matter.

Heads of Defense of Ukraine and Great Britain Andriy Taran and Ben Wallace signed a memorandum on strengthening cooperation in the military and technical spheres.

It provides for the allocation of a $ 1.6 billion loan to Ukraine and the re-equipment of the naval forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

It may seem to a not very knowledgeable observer that we are talking about something really serious.

However, in reality, the subject of the agreement is assistance in the construction of missile boats.

The first two will be manufactured at a British shipyard, then full-cycle production should be established in Ukraine.

Curiously, the memorandum was signed aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier Prince of Wales.

This detail sets the scaling of the event: the distance separating the aircraft carrier and the missile boat is equal to the distance from the spaceship to the village chaise.

It is clear that London can easily afford to participate in the modernization of the Ukrainian navy.

It's like getting rid of a persistent petitioner with a trifle lying around in your pockets.

As for free trade, the agreement fully reproduces a similar agreement between Ukraine and the EU.

And its signing can hardly be called a breakthrough.

The fact is that, as a trading partner, Ukraine is not of the slightest interest to Great Britain.

The website of the British government notes that the volume of trade between London and Kiev in 2019 amounted to about $ 1.9 billion. At the same time, Ukraine was in 58th place in the ranking of trading partners by the volume of exports of British goods for the 2018-2019 financial year.

In addition, there have not been and will not be any significant, strategically important Ukrainian goods on the British market.

Simply because they are not produced in Ukraine.

There is no reason to believe that the agreement will attract British investment or become any noticeable stimulus for the development of the Ukrainian economy.

The scheme of trade relations with the EU is discriminatory, which Viktor Yanukovych understood well in his time.

The fact that exactly the same model is used by London does not promise any significant trade benefits for Kiev.

As for the political results, they are.

The anti-Russian rhetoric of the Ukrainian president found understanding and sympathy.

However, Britain will not be able to provide any real help in countering Russia.

Well, maybe build a couple of boats.

Generally speaking, European countries easily and gladly support Ukraine, since it costs them nothing.

The missile boats can be considered a symbol of Zelensky's visit.

Strengthening the military power of Ukraine through the construction of several units of low-tonnage vessels, in all likelihood, should help the Ukrainian fleet to strengthen its positions in the waters of the Black and Azov Seas.

But this is unlikely to help the army as a whole, since the current ruling team has reduced by 127 million hryvnia in the budget for 2021 the cost of the armed forces.

So, in general, the trip of the Ukrainian ruler can be called a joke.

Which is quite consistent with both the importance of Ukraine in the European political space and the field in which Zelensky received applause before becoming president.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.