To think Britain should have nothing to do with this war

Countries in NATO:

1. Albania
2. Belgium
3. Bulgaria
4. Canada
5. Croatia
6. Czech Republic
7. Denmark
8. Estonia
9. France
10. Germany
11. Greece
12. Hungary
13. Iceland
14. Italy
15. Latvia
16. Lithuania
17. Luxembourg
18. Montenegro
19. Netherlands
20. North Macedonia
21. Norway
22. Poland
23. Portugal
24. Romania
25. Slovakia
26. Slovenia
27. Spain
28. Turkey
29. United Kingdom
30. United States
31. Finland (joined in 2023)

Say what now?????? Most of the population of Ukraine is not Russian. Russians made up less than 20% of the population. Are you from the Trump school of Stats and misinformation?

@Crumblebee8
No, I do not want the war going for as long as possible, but Ukraine has a right to independence and so do the other European countries. Giving Putin Ukraine will not give us peace. He got Georgia and Crimea and that didn’t stop him.

Remember Hitler invaded Poland and that’s when this country went to war with Germany. Should we have just said oh well, it’s only Eastern Europe?

What you seem to be suggesting is that we keep the war going for as long as possible, for the "chance" that it will bankrupt Russia. Is that chance really worth hundreds of thousands more young people being killed? It also seems very unlikely - China don't want Russia to fall and most other countries outside the west have continued doing business with them.

Ukraine has a much smaller population and is already forcing conscripts to fight against their will- where's their voice in all this? Once peace is made, the west should focus on strengthening defenses and increasing military spending- but keeping this war going is just a tragic waste of human life.

@HelplessSoul
That’s precisely why we should be supporting Ukrainian resistance to Putin, eventually he will run out of resources. If he gets a break now, he will have a better chance taking another country in future.
Ukraine is the largest country in Europe, if Putin gets a chance to rebuild his army, the Baltic Countries will be just a snack for him. Yes, they are in NATO, but it is obvious that Trump is not going to stand up to Putin so we will be in the same situation we are with Ukraine.

Perhaps Putin is mainly interested in invading territory where: a) most of the population is Russian, b) it is historically part of Russia, c) previous US administrations refused to allow the territory to be neutral and deployed WMD there.

The lesson taught by the history of 'domino effects' isn't completely clearcut, is it?

Ah, the old ‘charity begins at home’ argument dressed up as pragmatism but dripping with short-sightedness.

Let’s get something straight: isolationism is a luxury, one that expires the moment a real threat comes knocking at your door. You think foreign conflicts don’t concern you?

That Eastern Europe’s struggles are their problem alone? Tell me, what happens when a precedent is set that borders don’t matter, that might makes right? Do you think Russia stops at Ukraine? Do you think China isn’t watching?

War isn’t about sentiment; it’s about strategy. Supporting Ukraine isn’t just about helping a neighbour in need it’s about reinforcing the rules that keep the world from descending into chaos.

If we look the other way, we don’t just fail Ukraine; we invite the next invasion, the next dictatorship, the next crisis that we won’t have the luxury of ignoring.

As for resenting foreign aid resentment is a fine thing, but it won’t fill your gas tank when global instability drives prices through the roof. It won’t protect your economy when supply chains crumble because conflict spreads.

It won’t keep Britain safe when alliances weaken, and enemies grow bolder. You may not have ‘the capacity to care,’ but let me tell you when the consequences of inaction come knocking, you’ll wish you had cared a little sooner.

The world isn’t divided up neatly anymore. It never really was. If you refuse to engage beyond your own borders, don’t be surprised when the problems you ignored come marching right up to your doorstep.

Here’s what the post says:
In the Constitution of Mensa, it says that Mensa is not allowed to take any political action and cannot hold political affiliations (though Members or groups of members may express opinions as members of Mensa, provided their opinions or actions are not expressed as being those of Mensa as an organization). So while I do have personal opinions on what happened between Trump, Vance, and Zelensky (Володимир Зеленський) during the session with the press at the White House today, I am keeping those to myself. I wanted to provide some fact checking on the numbers being thrown around though, as these numbers are not politics but verifiable numbers.

The USA has not spent $350 billion in Ukraine, nor even $300 billion. I have seen figures ranging anywhere from $119.7 billion (Kiel Institute for the World Economy) to $182.8 billion (U.S. Department of Defense), but the most consistent figure that I have seen is around $175 billion, and only $105.1 billion of that is to the Ukrainian government directly:

• $2 billion in humanitarian aid
• $33.3 billion in budget support
• $69.8 billion in weapons, equipment, and other military support

Most of the remainder is funding various U.S. activities associated with the war in Ukraine, and a small portion supports other affected countries in the region (the $182.8 billion figure includes US military training and replenishing US defence stocks, so it includes all spending on the response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine). (Council on Foreign Relations, BBC News)

Of the $182.8 billion from the USA, only $83.4 billion has been sent, with the remaining $99.4 billion either not yet committed or not yet approved for payment. This is why Ukraine has received only $76 billion from the USA, and the $100 billion that people claim is missing is actually money that has not been sent. (Euronews, Українська правда)

By comparison, the Kiel Institute calculates that, including military, financial, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, the EU has spent $138.7 billion (compared to their calculation of $119.7 billion from the USA). Their calculations include only support directly given to Ukraine and exclude things like money used to replenish U.S. weapon stocks following donations to Kyiv, funds spent to help neighbouring countries welcome Ukrainian refugees, etc. However, using a broader definition, the European Union has committed $198 billion so far. (BBC News, Washington Post, Fox News)

Of all the funding Ukraine as received, NATO estimates that nearly 60% of the funding for Ukraine has come from across Europe and Canada. (ABC News and BBC News)

Canada has given $19.7 billion in aid to Ukraine:

• $12.4 billion in financial aid
• $4.5 billion in military assistance

Canada has also provided $5 billion to Ukraine from seized Russian assets, and the money will be repaid from interest earned on the held Russian assets (i.e., Russia will be bearing the burden of repayment). (Global News, National Post, CTV News, and Anadolu Agency)

In total, Ukraine has spent $120 billion of its own money, and Ukraine estimates that that total they have spent on the war is about $320 billion. (Voice of America)

If you're wondering, 35% of the funds going to Ukraine from Europe have been loans, and some of the repayment of those loans are coming from revenues from frozen and seized Russian assets and Ukraine isn't having to pay those portions of the loans, and the rest are really generous terms where Ukraine will be repaying less interest over lengthy repayment periods. The remaining 65% is grants an in-kind support. (Washington Post and BBC News)

*ETA: The actual value of the weapons and equipment sent to Ukraine by the USA is about 60% lower than they were priced because the price was for new stock. Much of the military equipment and ammunition sent to Ukraine is old and of limited combat effectiveness because it came from aging US stockpiles, some of the ammunition is expired, and a majority of the equipment isn't even used by the US military anymore (and therefore has an effective value of $0 to the USA). Normally, this stock would have to be disposed of, but giving it to Ukraine means there are effectively no disposal expenses. Furthermore, much of the funding for Ukraine is being spent in the USA, such as employing US workers to manufacture the replacement equipment and supplies for refilling US stockpiles. (Kyiv Post and AL24news - قناة الجزائر الدولية)

*ETA2: I am unable to share the links to the articles that I am using as sources, as there is an ongoing dispute between the Government of Canada and Facebook that prevents Canadian Facebook users from being able to share or even see news articles from any news agency. Someone shared with me a way to post the links, so I will try to do that later today.

Sorry haven’t rtwt but wanted to share this info on who has actually been funding Ukraine. As usual it seems Trump was over inflating the USA’s contribution.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid033czYXaaWCAciKfA6UEhxrGc8N7txV8tf99iuu4x24FbtNZWyQ3jj7KHdgBK3fHbHl&id=100063511091649

One day people will be saying that about us, then we'll find out how it feels.

Russia could stop the war today, they don’t want to. Just like all the other wars they have started.

Roseducks, Trump wouldn't know anything about diplomacy if it jumped up and bit him on the arse. Diplomacy is not telling Zelenskyy to concede everything.

Considering Putin cant even "get" Ukraine after 3 years, will be a hard job for him to go after anyone else.

And if you feel its morally right to defend Ukraine who wouldnt ever do the same for the UK, then yeh - be sure to get your children on the front line first in your pursuit of standing up for that "right".

🤦‍♂️

Why do you expect the EU to make contributions to NATO when it's not a member? Very strange.

Ah, the sweet allure of diplomacy if only the world worked that way. You think Trump should simply tell Putin to pack up and leave?

As if power bends to polite requests. Putin isn’t playing for pride; he’s playing for territory, influence, and control. And history tells us that men like him don’t retreat unless they are forced to.

Now, let’s talk about Ukraine’s losses. You think Trump is the problem?

The reality is, Ukraine is already bleeding territory, resources, lives. And the longer this drags on, the worse the outcome. Diplomacy isn’t about wishing for the best; it’s about bargaining from a position of strength. If a deal is on the table, it won’t be perfect, but neither is war without end.

As for Zelenskyy ‘rolling over’ no one expects that. But let’s not pretend this is just about Trump and Putin’s egos. Ukraine is a battlefield whether you like it or not.

You can shout about fairness, but fairness never won a war. Strategy did. The real question is: what endgame are you willing to accept?

Because ‘fighting to the last person’ sounds noble until you’re the last person left

Just a reminder …

It's really not hard to figure out why we should be backing Ukraine completely, is it?

Leaders from France, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Turkey, Finland, Sweden, the Czech Republic and Romania have all been invited - as well as the presidents of the European Council, European Commission and Nato Secretary General.

I may be extremely naive here but why is the military might of the countries above combined not enough to enforce security guarantees for Ukraine?

If Europe falls so does the UK and the US economically speaking. Game over.

What if your country gets invaded? I assume you’d not expect any support from allies for yourself and your children.

You can’t do diplomatic negotiations, to get peace, with Putin.

I’m not a war monger so I won’t be fucking cheering.

@Crumblebee8 No it isn’t 1940s, but you should look at more recent history. In 1989 the Soviet Union was a fully nuclear armed state, but the West (mainly Reagan and Thatcher) had put so much pressure on them through the arms race, that USSR de facto bankrupted itself. This allowed the Central/Eastern countries to break away and regain independence.

If we keep supporting Ukraine, there is a chance the same will happen to Putin’s regime. His resources are not indefinite.He already has to rely on North Koreans for help. Maybe even his own countrymen will say ‘enough is enough’.

On the other hand, if we give him Ukraine the pressure will be off. He will have time to rebuild his finances, replenish his arsenal and then move on. He’s got typical Soviet mentality and believes half of Europe should be his.
And unless the whole regime crumbles, there will be someone else to take over when he dies.

It’s quite scary that we’re having to talk about this stuff seriously isn’t it? It wouldn’t surprise me if Trump started executing people at all.