Forum Topic

British Troops In Ukraine ~ Yes or No?

Following the risible ménage a trois between Starmer, Macron and Zelensky in Paris on Monday when Starmer was attempting to portray himself as a tough World Leader🙄 do you think he was correct to pledge to send British troops to Ukraine? One day we might be able to have a proper poll on this forum.🫰For me, it’s an emphatic no.

Sue Hammond ● 2d24 Comments

"which 10 years on still hasn’t materialised"thank you for proving my point.

Michael Brigo ● 1d

@MB 12.58FYI the main reason I voted to leave the EU was for the UK to regain💯sovereignty and had very little to do with the EU army, which 10 years on still hasn’t materialised.  What a great idea that was.  Not.   

Sue Hammond ● 1d

@StevenNo I didn't misunderstand at all. There was a hyped up concern from Brexiteers that the EU would form it's own army and that the UK might take part in it, potentially putting British troops under German command (something that happens regularly as part of Nato drills btw).one of the reason Sue voted to leave was because of this. Remainers at the time said this was ridiculous but to no avail because 'all hail truth speaking Nige'.Sue is now agog that in fact there is no EU army and that Nige was 'wrong' all along. She won't admit it of course.

Michael Brigo ● 1d

NO.

Barbara Stevens ● 1d

Gdn today:-"11.08 GMTRussia says any western troops in Ukraine would be deemed 'legitimate combat targets'Meanwhile, Russia said that any western troops sent to Ukraine as part of the Coalition of the Willing would be deemed “legitimate combat targets,” after plans announced at the grouping’s summit earlier this week.Reuters reported that a Russian foreign ministry statement said “militaristic declarations” by a coalition of pro-Ukraine European governments were becoming increasingly dangerous.AFP added that Moscow labelled Ukraine and its European backers an “axis of war,” and stressing it was “dangerous.”"

David Ainsworth ● 1d

"Pity the US are cutting back on windmills, they're wasting all the hot air coming out of DC ..."Unusable. Too acid.

David Ainsworth ● 1d

Perhaps, if NATO fall apart, the EU army would have been good preparation and contingency. The other thing to consider is Europe's dependency on high tech.I believe both Visa and Mastercard are operated by companies registered in the US. If Denmark and European supporters were to be in a serious dispute or even conflict with the US over an illegal annexation of Greenland, could those countries be sanctioned by the US. If so, Visa and Mastercard would probably be required to stop providing services to those sanctioned countries. In theory, I believe Visa can operate independently out of its London and Singapore data centres, and Mastercard works on a peer-to-peer model for its transaction transfers. So there's technical resilience there but I believe individual countries that are sanctioned can be isolated from their networks (Iran?) hence a reconfiguration to isolate European segments to separate it from US control wouldn't be seemless. Of course, SWIFT is a Belgium company so I suppose Europe holds the Trump card on large international transfers  ...Ok, rather hypothetically, but who would have thought of a US President threatening any allies like Canada or Greenland & Denmark? Just some more forward thinking, or if you prefer, whaterboutery :-)Pity the US are cutting back on windmills, they're wasting all the hot air coming out of DC ...

Michael Ixer ● 1d

I suspect that you have misunderstood the concern about a European army. Sceptics were not worried that a European army might be too strong. On the contrary, they were worried that the creation of a European army might undermine NATO, which with American participation provides an effective deterrent against hostile entities like Russia, and replace it with a makeshift ill-equipped force answering to 27 different governments each with its own agenda.

Steven Rose ● 1d

Just pointing out the irony.One of the reasons you voted for Brexit was the mythical risk of an EU army being created.Now you are mocking the EU for not having it's own army.

Michael Brigo ● 1d

And your point is??

Sue Hammond ● 1d

@SueDuring the Brexit debate you posted a lot about how "there would be an EU army" etc etc, just going along with Farage and the other scaremongers told you. You even posted about this mythical army as a reason for voting leave.At the time the 'remainers' told you it was nonsense and designed to scare you into voting leave.So glad to hear you finally refer to it as 'mythical' - must stick in your throat a bit though?

Michael Brigo ● 1d

Let’s face it NATO needs the US far more than the US needs NATO.  Trump knows this and can therefore call the shots which hacks off a lot of people.  And what’s happening with the mythical European army that is supposedly being formed?    How many countries are going to participate and who is coordinating its formation?    I obviously need to hone my AI skills  …

Sue Hammond ● 2d

I agree. Boots on the ground in Ukraine to deter renewed Russian aggression has to be all of NATO including the US. Of course this will never happen unless a) the US is there and b) Russia agrees to it in the first place. I fear the current position of Ukraine fighting alone, but with European and US weaponry in support, is the best we can hope for. The US weaponry will continue to be paid for by the Europeans. It’s literally a bloody mess and I wish I could see a better way forward.The view of many in Ukraine is that the one thing that might change things is the death of Putin. Then there’d be a power struggle as there is no obvious successor, and Russia might become more preoccupied with internal politics instead of continuing with Putin’s “special military operation”.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2d

Only France and the UK have currently committed troops on the ground which the more comes to light looks ridiculous.  So no it is not confusing.  Our UK government is busy taking our army veterans to court over historic “crimes” whilst current serving soldiers can see how previous vets have been treated.  Who would pick up a gun.However the army doesn’t serve a Government is serves the King.  Hopefully all of Trump’s actions make Putin and Iran take the West seriously.

Robert Wheeler ● 2d

The Times is saying the gov plans to deploy 7'500 troops. For contrast, 3500 were initially deployed to police 22'000 sq miles of Helmand, gradually increased to 9'500. When the Americans saw how much the Brits were struggling they deployed 20'000 troops to help. Our politicians seem to think the military can operate with one hand tied behind their backs...

Adam Tripp ● 2d

So you spend months complaining that Europe hasnt stepped up to help and then once troops are committed you don't want to go ahead?Confusing

Michael Brigo ● 2d

Steven, the point of my analogy with Helmand is that I have no confidence that Starmer would deploy troops in sufficient numbers with sufficient fire power to defend themselves robustly, let alone deter the Russians

Adam Tripp ● 2d

"Eventually, after many deaths, the Americans massively reinforced our troops as they acknowledged what our PM wouldn't."The US would need to be there in Ukraine with the rest of Nato and dependable. Russia would need to be in complete agreement (and dependable).

David Ainsworth ● 2d

I agree with you Robert, the fact that most of the other NATO members have not committed to sending troops tells its own story.  However I don’t think it would deter the small boat illegals because they have a legion of human rights lawyers queuing up to invent reasons as to why they should stay in the UK.  Is there going to be a free vote in the Commons over this?

Sue Hammond ● 2d

I am really on the fence on this.  I want to support Ukraine but not if all NATO members are not in.  Interesting Germany and many others NATO members are not currently committing troops.  Starmer is well and truly out of his depth.This could be Starmer’s Stop the Boats win - who wants to come to a country with a high chance of being conscripted eventually.

Robert Wheeler ● 2d

The anal8gy with British troops in Helmand fighting the Taliban is not right. The idea of foreign troops on the ground in Ukraine  is not to fight the Russians but to serve as a deterrent to any further Russian incursions after a peace deal has been agreed. British troops along with other NATO forces are already stationed in Estonia as a deterrent.

Steven Rose ● 2d

"Though there is one positive, it will be the end of the Labour Party."That might be the least of our worries.

David Ainsworth ● 2d

Sue, It’s a big NO from me. Though there is one positive, it will be the end of the Labour Party.

Martine Guy ● 2d

Sue, I don't trust our politicians to get it right - just look at Helmand all those years ago. A few thousand troops to pacify a massive province - all they could do was send out foot patrols which were hugely vulnerable to IEDs. It was obvious that they were under strength to do what the politicians wanted, in fact I said so many times on this forum (search "152" for the thread). Eventually, after many deaths, the Americans massively reinforced our troops as they acknowldged what our PM wouldn't.

Adam Tripp ● 2d