Thread 18 Starmer: All sides of the House agree apart from the Trump bootlickers

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5264338-thread-17-starmer-treading-softly?page=40&reply=142243865

They are easier ways to get through though. I'm sorry to hear DH isn't great but I'm also another begging for lamb tax.

Newborn lambs are just the cutest. We have a working farm near us where you can visit them.

The baby piglets are something to behold too!

I am. And I am genuinely shocked that our PM is bragging about weapons being built in Belfast for Ukraine will boost economic growth. And putting our armed forces out there. Giving billions away...all without apparent scrutiny? This is all warmongering.
Ed sp

Weapons have been built in Belfast by Shorts since I was at Uni ( many years ago) and was a key employer for the brightest engineering students. How is more jobs in that area bad - better to be built there than bought from somewhere else.

Err the Russians can pull back to pre 2022 borders and Starmer can halt this warmongering, as you put it.

Or would you rather we sit back, don't help Ukraine, Russia takes all of the country, causing utter misery for them, not just under the "Soviets" as i have long called them under Putin.. but also the millions who will flee West..... Gas prices rise even further, causing hardship for us all, billions spent in support, more debt more economic worry.

Then he turns his sights to the Baltic states... which will be his next aim.

I don't think warmongering means what you think it does. The aggression already began more than 3 years ago and it wasn't Starmer doing it.

If we want to help ukraine we need to go all out. That means war with Russia. Otherwise the war drags on as it has. Yes I know what warmongering is, and yes Starmer didn't start it.

So what's your plan?
Don't be shy - spell out exactly what you want to happen.

I doubt that you'll get a straight answer notonthestairs.

That would be stupid...how long do you think a WW would "drag on" for? the last one was 6 years and cost around 50 million lives, but no one is really certain on this figure.

Russia, if it cannot gain ground, will eventually realise it cannot win, as happened in Afghanistan, the cemeteries in Russia are filling up & their economy is not sustainable... so eventually they'll be forced to negotiate.

I must admit that I don’t really understand the US or European positions on Ukraine now.

What is Trump proposing to do, and to get, if Ukraine agrees to terms the US is negotiating with Russia alone? Is the idea that the US stops support altogether unless it gets rare minerals? Are there actually rare minerals in Ukraine and if so how much of them?

What is Trump proposing the US does if Ukraine rejects the terms?

What is Trump proposing to do if the US can’t reach agreement with Russia?

What would Europe do if there’s no agreement between the US, Russia and Ukraine?

If there’s no peace to keep, what is Europe proposing to do?

And peacekeeping never works if the aggressor is determined. It was disastrous in the Balkans. I don’t believe European countries would stay and fight if Putin’s troops, planes and missiles come at them in Ukraine, because the European public would oppose the casualties.

In case anyone thinks this is defeatist, I strongly support military aid and support in Ukraine and I blame Trump for creating this mess. Europe is to blame historically to the extent that it was content to ride on the US’s coat tails. It was Europe’s job to oppose Russian attack on its neighbour. But if Trump turns away I just can’t see what Europe could do now or in the next ten years to help Ukraine effectively.

I share your confusion and consternation , to be honest. But I do trust most European leaders to make morally right, proportionate and appropriate decisions on our behalf. I am by nature a pacifist so am always conflicted.

There was a post about the minerals on another tread but not sure I could refind it now. They definitely exist as , of course, does the oil pipeline.

Yes there are an awful lot of IF's ... all dependent on whether Trump sides with Russia or with Europe.

We have a UK military that the previous administration, whilst giving out stock piles, never paid to replace... shameful, so now we are are snookered.... Europe as a collective didn't build up capacity in feb 2022 and hasn't since.

Ultimately, Europes help maybe in assisting millions of refugees.

I wasnt suggesting we go all out. That would indeed be more than stupid.

But I guess if we get growth on the back of this it's all good.

Please note the heavy use of sarcasm

This thread has certainly been an eye opener.

@Quierounlibro You clearly have a different plan in mind - please spell it out.

My absolutely non-expert prediction:

I think an agreement will be reached. Trump will get the "minerals". Russia will save face by getting to keep some of the land that it has taken. Zelensky will step down as part of the attempt to allow Russia to save face (sorry, but I think it might happen).

Then there will be peace for a few years, during which time Europe bolsters defences.

After that, who knows.

They won't.

We need a new thread. How about Starmer, a coalition of the willing?

If we want to help ukraine we need to go all out. That means war with Russia. Otherwise the war drags on as it has

Is what you said. How is that not suggesting we "go all out"?

like this.

Ooh, yes. I like that.

We cannot go all out. But I don't believe giving ukraine just enough to carry on for a few years is right either.
Somehow a negotiated settlement has to be agreed. And honestly I don't know what that looks like.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5286167-thread-19-starmer-a-coalition-of-the-willing

Helping hand to finish thread.

.