I never thought I'd see the US aligning with Russia

If this does change, I'll happily admit I'm wrong. I see a lot of this "friendly alignment" to purely be posturing and for show to get results... ie end of the war.

There's was no Pro-Russia defence doctrine change during Trump term 1 and there isn't any inclination that the doctrine will change during this term.

Problem with trying is money. We don't have the money to do it ourselves. We're struggling to have the money to even do it as a partnership with current US-aligned projects.
Even the slow-burner UK designed Tempest fighter from BAE is being offered and touted to other countries (Saudi Arabia being one) as we don't have the money to fund the project on its own... and that's not due to meet IOC until roughly 2035... if we had to speed that up, we'd need a lot of investment.

@bombastix that's fine I'm ok with bluntness, it's not a nice situation. I was all in to fund a proxy war, but the sheer number of deaths is staggering and a spokesperson was compelling on Ukraine not being able to win this. I shifted my strong view on those two points.

I just don't see it as effective as so few and they do they even engage in fighting if the aggressor returns or do they leave? and potentially risky for escalation

So all it does is put more people in harms way.

If someone could talk through how we de-escalate when untrustworthy Putin behaves in a manner many expect of him I'm happy to hear it.

If you were to post Putin is totally trustworthy and will respect leaving 30k peacekeepers alone, I'd more ok with it. But I don't think he is.

So what to do instead? Spend on defence big time, try to build bridges with US even though not reliable and mostly prepare.

Trump wants land and money, he thinks putting Ukraine in a vice will give him that. He doesn’t align with putin or anyone else for that matter because he is self serving. The main worry is that this bromance will end in war when trump realises putin doesn’t play by his rules and is actually also self serving

@EasternStandard - I just think that if it is not even included, and it is Anglo French proposal it seems, the deal surrenders Ukraine. Immediately. We can pussy foot about that, but the argument is really whether Ukraine can be sovereign and not be destroyed by its aggressive neighbour. No peacekeepers, then it's over for them in my view as a democracy or sovereign state.

@bombatix well sure I don't trust Putin therefore the 'peacekeeper' sounds a misnomer.

And the argument he's keen to strike again makes me less likely to buy it, it's just higher risk to troops and escalation.

Some of your other stuff I agree with, not least how can you trust US on the backstop security if you acknowledge they are no longer reliable allies?

Without US there's no chance we or anyone will do it.

@BigDecisionWorthIt - i won't underestimate that task because we have been wedded to the US since 1945. The implications are incredible for the UK.

I suppose you have to look at the short, medium and long term. Short and medium term
we are dependent. But think of the consequences if we don't try. We would just be another Ukraine, clearly.

I would be very concerned re NATO and our security services too. These links go very deep. Imagine that this friendly alignment to Russia continues. Arguably we have little security now.

@EasternStandard - I don't agree because one rather depends on the other to be effective. No security means the ability of Russia to undermine the effectiveness of sanctions. We know the Russians try anyway hence shadow fleets, shadow companies and peacetime attacks on us in terms of infrastructure.

I think it's a good sign that the offer has been made and that the Russians hate it. It tells you a lot about their motives which are as bent as a nine pound note, imo.

I also liked how immediately the Russians reverted to type on hearing this plan which is the real Russia, not this brothers in arms fantasy with Trump. It is depraved place and the idea of its influence expanding via Ukraine is something Europe must work hard to prevent.

Edit: quote got missed. Meant for Bombastix.

Out of interest, how do you suggest the UK and NATO stop reliance on the US?

Successive conservative and Labour governments have cut and destroyed our military, got rid of capability and aircraft before any replacements were IOC let alone FOC, and now reliant on US money/partnership for its fighter and intelligence aircraft.

. A lot still all these years later reeling from binning Nimrod without a replacement and really the eventual replacement (P8 Poseidon) being gained through the US.
. Reaper/Protector - Again massively reliant on the US.
. F-35 program
. RJ - partnership with the US
. Retiring the Sentinel R1... later sold to the US Army who've paid for the tech upgrades and plan to fly it again.
. Retiring the E3D Sentry before the E7 is ready and now relying on NATO partners for the awacs capability

That's before mentioning the fact that NATO relies on US tech, infrastructure and military equipment to even function and conduct ISR etc.

Look back to reports from Dec about Danish support to Ukraine. It's donated a second batch of aircraft to Ukraine... F-16s.... American made aircraft.

Whether people like it or not, the UK, Europe and NATO are over-reliant on the US because of their inability to take military procurement, military development, industry and defence seriously.
Changing this won't be quick or easy and will take a lot more money than what action government would make available.

@bombastix I think your pp have highlighted other elements which sound good to me

US agreeing to releasing funds and EU plus preparing on a committed basis.

Energy discussions between US and EU

Basically keep the inflammatory stuff to one side and build, mend relations and prepare

I'd feel more comfortable with that approach than anything which could easily trigger U.K. troops v Russia wider conflict

Trump is pro Putin. I suppose the next question is which of our allies is next.

Trump isn't bothered; these alliances nurtured since 1945 are going to be scrapped. It's what the US voter wants. Let's not be blind to that. He didn't hide his attitude did he?

It is all to be replaced by who can give Trump the best deal. And even that may mean nothing if he changes his mind.

He was volatile last time but not this bad. Perhaps this is the real Trump emboldened by even more political power and less resistance from the Democrats?

I don't think he really wanted power, the first time. It was a publicity stunt. Once he was there, he didn't know what to do with it. I heard he sat in his room eating pizza and watching stuff about himself on Fox. He agonised about his crowd size and sacked and humiliated staff so regularly it became a joke. But there were people around him from the old regime, who kept things under control. They were even called 'the Axis of Adults'. This time, his views have crystallised and he's surrounded and supported by people with a strong far right agenda, most notably Musk. There's a reason why people say Musk is the real president.

@EasternStandard - isn't that a slightly odd way of putting it? In the end, your implicit assumption seems to be that there no guarantee that Russia will not act to invade Ukraine.

My view is different; that if you don't include something like Starmer's guarantee plan that becomes a certainty.

So a question for you; where do you draw the line on a peacekeeping plan and a solution. If not the current suggestion, what would you do to offset the risk of further conflict?

I don't believe Russia will not continue incursion into Ukraine post any deal. It seems better to me to agree peacekeeping to actually test Russia's actual intentions

Ok so we are there as the U.K. troops and as you believe Putin will continue, what happens next?

I don't mind differing views, but I am reluctant to walk into a UK / NATO situation at war

Plus all have said it will only happen with US 'backstop'. Do you trust the solidity of the US in committing to that over time?

He was volatile last time but not this bad. Perhaps this is the real Trump emboldened by even more political power and less resistance from the Democrats?

Either way the defunding of the military is an absolute disaster, as was leaving the EU. We urgently need to pull the public together here - we need to get them off benefits, stop paying concessions we can’t afford and rechannel the money toward defence. I feel like the whole of the UK has been asleep at the wheel for the last 10 years, and we’re about to see a rather awful result.

@EasternStandard - I think we just disagree on how you manage that risk.

I don't believe Russia will not continue incursion into Ukraine post any deal. It seems better to me to agree peacekeeping to actually test Russia's actual intentions because I don't believe Putin will stop. Ukraine is still a sovereign country and this deal can be written to ensure this: if there are no specific peacekeeping provisions it will be worthless.

Ukraine is a sovereign state: we should help them maintain that in my view.

He has been like this for years. It’s not a recent thing.

@bombastix explain what?

I've posted what I think, I don't think I've missed what you're looking for. Can you be specific on what you think is missing.

I saw an article talk about the risk associated with the troops and that's where my interest lies

There was also a commentator following this up saying any return to fighting needs a kind of get out of escalation clause. Not sure what.

To me that sounds like sitting ducks. If I know that would be the plan then Russia will.

I don't mind if people can say how it is actually robust and without escalatory risk, perhaps someone knows.

All my views are based on not getting closer to further war

Why don't you explain @EasternStandard?

You are a great one for questions but little explanation.

I think it's rather clever. And clearly the Russians absolutely hate it because it would limit what they could do outside of the peace deal.

This is how they work. They want a nice simple deal and then get into their usual MO of sabotage and undermining matters with no limit.

This is their usual mentality. We should not trust them.

Not sure what you mean @bombastix

This idea that Russia seethingly agrees to 30k peace keepers. I mean why would they?

What's keeping those troops free from another attack and what next if it happens?

I can see why only Macron and Starmer are pushing it, but I guess we'll see.

Actually... stupid autocorrect

You don't know do you @EasternStandard?

Actuality the two things go well together.

The Russians hate it. Good. It limits their ability to undermine sanctions and attack Ukraine's infrastructure. That is clearly what they want to do.

30,000 peacekeepers doesn't do this though

Also, this thing has to work.

The EU is still buying Russian gas. It would like to stop.

The question of Russian economic integration is a big issue for Europe. But it seems the signs so far are that it is not business as usual. And that is good.

I mean it's dire for ordinary Russians but let's face it Putin doesn't care about them or their poverty. The EU and the UK should not be enabling oligarch Russian business which is backed by Putin.

Energy discussion sounds good

Anything that dampens escalation goes in good basket, including keeping US marginally onside by buying stuff or money

The opposite in the other

Plus EU need to spend on preparations not reparations (just saw headline)

Tbh that is predictable but the point will be if Starmer can sell it to Trump. We will find out shortly,

The Russians hate it. Good. It limits their ability to undermine sanctions and attack Ukraine's infrastructure. That is clearly what they want to do.