To think we cannot afford to support Ukraine anymore

[Saysomething1234]

This may be an unpopular opinion but it is annoying me to no end and NC

We have a littany of issues crying out for funding domestically - NHS broken. Economy going down the drain. Pound down 20% in one year. Public services collapsing, Education system requiring re-investment, high taxes driving talent out. We can keep blaming our politicians but someone needs to prioritise where money goes - and no one is willing to talk about this

Yet we are spending hundreds of billions in supporting Ukraine in a war which has nothing to do with us. Yes we are morally supporting them but is there no amount which will be too much? We are paying both directly (through weapons and aid) and indirectly (through huge energy subsidies - last totalling north of £200bn) - we need to stop this spending, reduce energy prices, stop this craziness

How is this war something we can afford on the basis on principles and why aren't we more aggressively pushing for a negotiated settlement?

We cannot afford this. It sucks for Ukrainians but this is not UK's bill to foot.

AIBU?

But each of the NATO countries on the border with Ukraine from the old Soviet Block - ie Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia etc have made it quite clear that their assessment is that they are next. That is why they are giving so much to help Ukraine.

Given that the intelligence assessment of NATO is very much that NATO countries are next and you agree to staying in NATO, what do you think Britain buys by not being involved? If you were telling me the UK should withdraw from NATO, and you don't care about NATO assessments at least I could get where you are coming from, but you seem to be saying that we should stay in NATO and you agree with fighting for NATO when the time comes. But you aren't prepared to accept the very best intelligence assessments that NATO has that it would be better to fight Russia now rather than later.

That is why it is even dafter than Chamberlain. At that time the British government assessment was that doing a deal with Hitler would give us "peace in our time". It was wrong, and negotiating with dictators of that ilk has been shown to be a wong move time after time (and one would hope people have now learnt from history), but it was more understandable in the circumstances. Here, none of the members of the NATO alliance think negotiating is a good idea, they think it is daft and pointless. But you, without being privy to all the intelligence of the very best assessors we have, think that Putin will stop at Ukraine, and we can get away with not paying now without having to pay even more later. A stitch in time saves nine - yes you could save that stitch now, lazy people often do, as it is too much trouble to manage now, but it is stupid economics as well as poor morality.

It is precisely because Ukraine is sending their husbands and sons to defend against the Russian invader in blood that we in UK do not have to. All the more reason to pour arms and aid to Ukraine who is fighting the war for Europe.

You think some Asian countries are part of NATO? The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? Incredible ignorance.

not a single answer to this. says everything about those expressing their heartfelt and deepest support

i am not the coward/hypocrite here

I can answer this outstanding question. No I do not want my relatives to have to fight Russia.
That is why it is so important to send Ukrainians the means to defend themselves.

So? Now you a brexit voting nut bag cares about foreign aid? Yeah right. You’re an RT plant.

Go educate yourself before jumping up and down

www.globalasia.org/v3no3/feature/nato-and-asias-changing-relationship_w-bruce-weinrod

Over the past few years, several Asian and Pacific nations have established structured relationships with NATO. These include Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. At a deeper level, five Asia-Pacific countries have joined NATO's Tailored Cooperation Program—Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Singapore—which implies being a "global partner" with the alliance.

Ah, but by the OP’s logic, it would be worth it, we’d have money back in the coffers for our good British citizens. Anyone who disagrees is just a woke liberal, and 30% agree!

That old chestnut. The 5th richest country.........

With the poorest people.

Clearly you have never lived hand to mouth, been on the bones of your arse, and not known where the next meal is coming from, and gone without meals to feed your own children. LOTS of people in the UK have.

The UK... the world's 5th richest country. RICH for the very few!

your response to me presenting inconvenient facts is calling me "brexit voting nut bag"? is that your argument?

wow. weak. must be lonely in liberal-ville

This!

Your basis for supporting ukrainians is that you'd rather they die than your own relatives? i am glad you said it. nothing wrong with that logic. honesty is appreciated. i can see the rationale when it is not wrapped in the guise of morality.

I’ve answered it indirectly. I do not want our army to go to war. That’s why we are better to fund the Ukrainians to fight. Otherwise we will be at war in Poland or the Baltics.

support for the war in Ukraine is not inconsistent with not wanting to go to war ourselves - quite the opposite. All of the smart people in the room realize that if we don’t support the Ukrainians, Poland will be next then we will actually be at war.

Exactly, and it's those very few rich people that are the exact reason you've been on the bones of your arse and not been able to feed your children, not supporting Ukraine in the war.

The UK... the world's 5th richest country. RICH for the very few!

This is a political choice.

It wouldn't be any different if we had no foreign aid and gave not a single penny to Ukraine.

If they had already considered their options and joined the army, yes. We don't have conscription in the UK. If you join the army you are aware that you are signing up to fight people, not just signing up to sit around in case the UK gets invaded. That's how it works.

@icefishing you said it better than me!

What an utterly ludicrous post.

No it is perfectly accurate post.

Why does the OP have to "be very specific"? All wars end with a negotiated settlement in one form or another. I think the OP is right to believe that too little emphasis is being place on this ATM. There was some talk recently of Russia being prepared to negotiate. I hope this is true.

There is nothing stupid in asking that in order to protect UK's interests and lives of its nationals would we choose a or b

option a - fight very expensive proxy war (where many ukrainians die)
option b - find diplomatic solution however unsavoury but save lives and $$s

inability to see options might be insanity. which i think the route you appear to want to take.

We are not fighting in this war so it’s irrelevant. We would be fighting if the Russians attacked nato territory and it’s possible some conscription would be required. So better to sort it out now rather than to appease them further

@Saysomething1234

Over the past few years, several Asian and Pacific nations have established structured relationships with NATO.

......Nevertheless despite all the fine words those nations are not signatories to the North Atlantic Treaty, are not in NATO and are not bound by the provisions of said treaty.

Maybe that's one hole you need to stop digging.

So ok. Let's follow your logic. The West steps back, lets Putin have Ukraine. We get rid of sanctions. Let's even assume for a moment that Ukraine capitulates.

So what then? What's the result?

1. Putin is in a much stronger position. He has Ukrainian food production and the ability to manipulate global food prices and manufacture famine. He has strategically important territory. He's still an irredentist, still has that dream of recreating Greater Russia. Who's next? Who's got a significant ethnically Russian population? Hi, Latvia! We've given greater economic influence to a guy who wants your country. And so we end up where we are now, except it's a fighting war because NATO so actually much more expensive.

1. Turns out we massively emboldened China by showing we'd fold in the first winter of relatively mild economic pain. China decides that this looks like a great opportunity to try to strike a killer economic blow against the West. A great way to do that also aligns with their territorial ambitions: invade Taiwan. Whether or not TSMC destroys its facilities, or the US does to prevent China from gaining them, it's very clear that its integration with the Netherlands and the US means production halts overnight. Farewell, global economy. It was nice while it lasted. (Slight dramatisation but if you think the current economic situation is bad, I invite you to imagine a world without TSMC's outputs.)

So on point 1 - we end up where we are now, except we're also in a shooting as well as an economic war. On point 2 - fuck , anything that makes that scenario even slightly less likely is worth pursuing.

Incidentally, if you think the woes in the NHS are due to spending in the last 12 months on Ukraine and energy bailouts, I have a bridge to sell you. Or maybe a bus.