AIBU to not want to go to war

If it reaches full combat the US will have no choice but to join. Imagine the nightmare for them if Russia invades most of Europe. Do you think they would let that happen?

@Wildflowers99 so you are convinced we'll back Ukraine even without US security?

With full combat if necessary?

Of course they’re going to say the US are necessary. They’re hoping they will come back, and why wouldn’t they? We can’t pretend we haven’t lost our most powerful and richest ally. It’s devastating.

But rather than slink away, or mutter things about private meetings and making vague neutral statements, Starmer convened all parties interested in peacekeeping and has said we are fully committed to protecting Ukraine, and this is with the knowledge the US might not come back.

You sound desperate for the whole thing to fail.

Well Europe has nailed its colours to Ukraine’s mast without any assurances about US involvement at all, so we will proceed whether or not they join us.

Can you show why you are so certain?

The gov line this morning as quoted is still US are necessary.

If the mineral deal is signed and Russia says no to troops for example, do you think it'll go ahead?

We've only ever offered troops after peace not to fight, unless you can say where you've seen we would go to combat?

Well Europe has nailed its colours to Ukraine’s mast without any assurances about US involvement at all, so we will proceed whether or not they join us. Obviously if they don’t it’ll be hideous, but it has to be done. There’s no backing out for us now. This is it, Starmer made himself perfectly clear.

@Greyexpectations it's mostly radio but it's reported already, said this morning by Pollard

He told Times Radio: “We think it essential there is a US backstop to make this work.”

You are very sure the boots on the ground promised by Starmer after the debacle in the Oval Office is contingent on US support.

Why do you think this? Can you provide some source material I can read to understand this position a bit better, please?

Just wondering if this is something Starmer has said, or if it’s something you believe for another reason (eg the historical context of US/UK peacekeeping missions being usually intertwined).

No it's still we only send in some peacekeeping troops if you back us. It might be a few more of those troops than last week but they still don't do it without backing.

US may say no still as they have been with each leaders' request.

Not definite either way but it's still contingent on US security and Russia signing.

I don’t think they will go without US security but that security won’t be at the level of expectation it was last week. In essence the EU are dredging up every last scrap of protection they can muster between them, so the US only has to agree to whatever smaller deficit is left at the end.

@Wildflowers99 you need to listen to the answer on whether they'll go without US security.

Do you know what the answer to that is?

It's not in the deal about to be signed.

Did the ‘boots on the ground’ part escape you?

Well yes because the deal will be with the US and Europe.

Well we'll see. There isn't a new deal as suggested it's the same one, nor is there any European security offered.

Well yes because the deal will be with the US and Europe.

The first deal was about Ukraine paying 500 bn to the US in minerals that was amended.

Last I checked the the ""Coalition of the Willing" (hate the name) was willing to draw up a peace plan to present to Trump and put boots on the ground to ensure the peace. At least that's what Starmer said.

This only happens if there's US security which won't be in that deal.

And if Russia sign

Last I checked the the ""Coalition of the Willing" (hate the name) was willing to draw up a peace plan to present to Trump and put boots on the ground to ensure the peace. At least that's what Starmer said.

It seems though that the UK and France are not on the same table when it comes to the truce plan.

I also hope Germany steps up their forming of the new government. It can't all be lead by UK and France alone.

It's at least better than the first mineral deal.

Just saw this, it's the same deal. What do you think has changed?

Look he will probably sign it and get the security guarantees from Europe.

Europe are not offering this. Even more than that if US don't offer it no troops go in.

Well Trump for example.

Look he will probably sign it and get the security guarantees from Europe.

Not my ideal outcome but needs must.It's at least better than the first mineral deal.

I still think the way it was handled is bloody disgraceful. And I don't think breaking to transatlantic relations and threatening NATO was worth it. But that's what Americans voted for and I think maybe that's what many were hoping for all along.

@kattaduck U.K. has advised do it, and he says he will. What do you think could stall it?

Well he hasn't signed anything has he?
Nor has Europe signed anything with the US.

Ukraine's minerals belong to them not the US.

Troops only go in if US security is there and that's not being added to the deal Z is signing.

I think Starmer is going to work it out so his coalition of allies are the ‘boots on the ground’ and supply weapons. The US will be offered minerals in return for a promise that if Russia break a ceasefire, they’ll intervene then to ‘protect the minerals and therefore American interests’. But the USA won’t have to make any more donations until that happens.

It means that telling the people of a country you’ve never visited that their culture doesn’t exist is a bit of a joke.

You have lived in Scotland for 20 years but never been to NI or Wales? Yet you can say, with great confidence that all the nations of the UK are the same because we eat wedges and watch the same telly?

You’re like those Americans who have strong opinions on how much better they are than the rest of the world, despite not possessing a passport.