"Prime Minister Keir Starmer recommits to £3 billion a year of military support for Ukraine until 2030/31 and for as long as needed"

US only really joined after Pearl Harbour

I'd rather we don't need a Pearl Harbour moment to make people realise how serious the situation could get for us here
Putin will continue with others if he takes Ukraine and we will be drawn in like it or not. Appeasement doesn't work.

Pa it was an innocent question. No sarcasm intended.

I don’t. You could tell me?

As a bit of context, the UK recieved $31.4bn from the US in Lend-Lease aid during WW2 ($670bn in today's money), and a further $2.7bn ($58bn today) in post-war aid via the Marshall Plan.

Although the US was late to actively joining the war, they recognised the importance of the Allies' fight against Nazi expansion and provided the funds and equipment for us to do so.

Serious parallels with today's situation in Ukraine. We need to stand behind Ukraine, and while $3bn sounds a lot to us, on a global and national scale it is pretty reasonable.

Blimey, you don't seem to have got your head around how AIBU works...

@Arewealljustloosingtheplot oh dear.

£3bn is not a lot of money in terms of government spend. It's like me giving my food bank £20 a month.

I’m unsure as to why my opinion matters so much to you, why do you desperately need to be right?! I’m sorry I’ll have to leave our little interaction now to get some work done. Have a lovely day.

Wonder if OP is going to come back?

Ukraine shouldn’t be allowed to fall. Russia won’t stop there . It’ll be a NATO country next. That said I think it’s a lot of money. I do think it’s easier to spend money you haven’t earned. I might have wants but when I consider how many minutes it took me to earn £3 for a decent coffee, Then I decide to wait till I’m home and have nice coffee for 50p. When work is buying I’m much more generous.

I hope when they commit to enormous sums they consider where the money comes from and how hard people have had to work.

And more. It was a foolish point given the spending you were talking about, and doesn't get any less so with repetition.

Yes I did say overspending is typical labour behaviour.

I just said that overspending was.

This is a myth. Historically Labour borrow less than Conservative, and repay more leading to lower overall borrowing. They have presided over higher GDP growth and lower unemployment.

Lmao nice try.

You were asked what we should do instead, ie instead of the financial support for Ukraine. The conversation is clearly about that. Then you said 'this is typical Labour behaviour'. The 'this' being discussed is the financial support package for Ukraine.

You're right though, there's nothing someone with that level of understanding could possibly do to help me.

I take it it was bs about putin being riddled with cancer/dying

Oh man, this is embarrassing.

see, I haven’t actually said that supporting Ukraine is ‘a labour thing’ I just said that overspending was.

but anyway, if you can’t read the thread properly then there is nothing I can do to help you!

Yes, yes, people who point out the massive flaws in your points are just meeeeeean.

The bottom line is, you were demonstrably wrong when you talked about financial support for Ukraine being a Labour thing. It is not. It was a Tory policy too. Whether you happen to agree with this policy makes nary a shit of difference, and this would be true even if you were arguing that point better.

I get that, but since this amount is about a quarter of a percent of spending, the savings of just stopping the waste of the previous government will cover it for a good few years while still enabling additional spending in areas such as the NHS.

P.S. 3bn is actually quite a small amount of NHS funding. Things like clamping down on missed appointments would be far better than just giving an extra 3bn. The NHS is poorly administered, not necessarily short of money.

Putin winning will be a disaster for Europe and the rest of the world. Plus a lot of this money will actually help the UK economy.

That's not what you wrote. About then spend makes no sense

This doesn’t make a huge amount of sense either!

it’s amazing how many people have been so rude and aggressive in this thread , demanding explanations, being personally nasty. There is really no need. You don’t have to agree with everyone, but you can do that without trying to belittle , just comes across as arrogant and aggressive.

Ukraine is losing at the moment because they didn’t get enough right support at the right time. Yes, we’ve sent them a lot of humanitarian support but war is not conducted with warm clothes and children toys however necessary they might be. Ukraine needs weapons and some specific weapons considering the size of territory.
We are helping Ukraine because our ( NATO) territory is the next. Like with all bullies they don’t stop at one target, once they feel that they go unpunished the bullies (Russia) will move to someone else. It’s in our geopolitical and SELFISH interests to help Ukraine. We fight Putin by proxy at this point. Next stage is fighting him by ourselves. But there is not a stage of peaceful existence with him, it doesn’t work like this.

Can I also remind people that Ukraine hosted nuclear weapons at the moment of Soviet Unions collapse and then agreed to transfer them to Russia in exchange for assurances from Russia, UK and USA to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in existing borders. UK is part of this treaty. UK promised to guarantee Ukrainian independence and sovereignty. It’s not widely known but easy to google.

That's not what you wrote. About then spend makes no sense.

Now you've clarified somewhat, it's still a foolish point, because you were trying to make this party political. It isn't. Financial support for Ukraine was a Tory government policy and is now a Labour one. Whether you happen to approve of either has no effect on that. As I said, incoherent.

We nearly all had the opportunity last week to vote for a party who don't want to support Ukraine because Farage is a Putin stooge. And they got 5 seats.

Do you? Can you point to what makes you believe that statement?

Reports tend to undermine his claims of willingness to negotiate. Most claims come via his anonymous sources (known for their honesty and integrity and no fear at all of a heart attack while flying out a 6th floor window) which cannot be relied upon.

Essentially, he can mumble all he likes about negotiation, but he isn't coming to the table.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-wants-ukraine-ceasefire-current-frontlines-sources-say-2024-05-24/#:~:text=MOSCOW%2FLONDON%2C%20May%2024%20(,the%20West%20do%20not%20respond.

Why? The reason Ukraine are in this drawn out war is because they aren’t in NATO, so are having to go through it alone. If Russia try to pull any of this shit with the rest of Europe, they will be brought down.

Excellent point.