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?

By what rights do the EU/NATO lay claim to Ukraine?

Neither the EU nor NATO has invaded Ukraine, sought to govern it or remove its independence or sovereignty.

I know that these are tricky concepts. But the difference is that the people with guns who have gone into someone else's country and tried to claim it's now theirs are the actual invaders and hostile actors.

In your hypothetical example: I'd expect us to examine the internal legitimacy of the internal actions before deciding what to do next. If the ruling power had gone back on its commitments to its citizens and overruled its parliament because of pressure from an external power, and there were widespread protests against that action and action from the parliament to remove that leader, I'd expect us to at least look at all the factors in considering the legitimacy of that action in deciding who to support, and seek a normalisation of the situation through the democratic process. If that democratic process resulted in a fairly even result (for example, 54%) I would feel reassured that the sovereignty of the nation and its people was to some extent still intact.

Remind me what Putin said about the 2014 election result before the elections?

What armed coup? The Euromaiden protesters, they were armed with sticks and petrol bombs, hardly NATO issue weapons? The protests were sparked by the Ukrainian government's sudden decision not to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, instead choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. Ukraine's parliament had overwhelmingly approved of finalizing the Agreement with the EU, while Russia had put pressure on Yanukovych to reject it, which he did, sparking civil unrest.

Nazis, don't forget the Nazis!

It's also not quite true and ignores the fact that Ukraine has a legislature as well as an executive, which also has powers and legitimacy separate from the office of the President, which include the ability to act against the President.

@Ranevskaya

"but what did I expect?"

There we go again with the victim mentality so beloved of your politicians and diplomats

What did you expect, really? Your country has invaded a sovereign nation and is currently engaged in attacking civilian infrastructure. Not to forget the forced deportation, rape and murder.

But poor Russians

Aye right

Or the "Jewish clique/Zionist coup"!

Those damn Jewish Nazis.

I thought Yanukovych ran away after u-turning on alignment with European values and then setting the dogs on the citizens who protested

But no. EU/NATO bad

This is what it all boils down to, OP. So we're not doing it out of the goodness of our hearts - it's a strategic decision that we can't yet afford to change.

By 'we', I mean the British government.

Glad we never did that to Afghanistan/Iraq anyone

Not sure Afghanistan is the example you want to go for while you're whatabouting....

from the beeb

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62083196

Which happened because the pro-russian Ukrainian government was overthrown and a pro-EU one installed in it's place.

Crimea houses Russia's Black Sea fleet and is/was a very important strategic position as it provides them with relatively quick naval access to the Mediterranean (and beyond), as well as a presence in the area.

Anyone with half a brain would have known the Russians wouldn't sit back and allow that fleet to be surrounded by what they considered hostile forces, or be willing to loose the stategic position it gave them.

Using the USA again, what do you think their response would be if Bahrain suddenly fell under the control of a pro-Iranian or Iraqi government and the US Fifth fleet was surrounded by perceived hostile forces? You think they'd just sit back and abandon their middle eastern naval presence or would they look to go in and secure and protect it?

Do Afghanistan and Iraq make everything the russians do acceptable to you OP?

I'm just wondering the relevance of your whataboutism.

No it makes it obvious that we should not use high horse morality to judge others since we are prone to similar behaviours without any consideration for those affected by our actions

Which happened because the pro-russian Ukrainian government was overthrown and a pro-EU one installed in it's place.

You're using the words 'overthrown' and 'installed' again.

Can you talk us through the process of both the overthrowing and the installation?

That was the sound of the point whooshing way over your head there.

It's interesting though, the more intelligent Russian apologist in the thread had enough awareness not to bring up Afghanistan when he or she was whatabouting. You clearly don't.

@Thebestwaytoscareatory

"Anyone with half a brain would have known the Russians wouldn't sit back and allow that fleet to be surrounded by what they considered hostile forces, or be willing to loose the stategic position it gave them"

Interesting use of the word "allow"

Its fuck all to do with russia what sovereign nations do within their own borders. That's it at its most basic. Not too difficult to understand except for the contrarian genocide apologist.

Honestly, this gets even funnier. Do you know much about the recent history of Afghanistan, by any chance? Say, the bits that happened before the Taliban got in?

The 'wide political reading' hasn't got that far.

I'm just wondering how many posts it's going to take he/she/it before they cotton on...

So; are you advocating that self determination does not apply to the Ukrainian people? They've witnessed what happened in Chechnya and chose a different path for themselves that was more pro EU; but it was a choice that they made.

It wasn't sudden. Your Bahrain analogy doesn't work.

Putin also had other reasons for invading Crimea- it gave him access to a strategic port.

Yanukovych fled after he refused to sign to sign the parliament approved European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement which led to civil unrest and demands for his resignation.

The port of Sevastopol belonged to Ukraine after 1991, Russia's Black Sea Fleet were allowed continued use of the port under lease from the Ukraine. Russia, following Yanukovych's removal led an illegal annexation and held an internationally unrecognized referendum supporting reunification. Russia would probably still have use of the port as per the lease agreement if had continued to honour Ukraine's territorial integrity.

I am disappointed none of the apologists have made reference to 'poking the Russian bear'.

Very disappointed

No; I think that's been covered....

Anyone with half a brain would have known the Russians wouldn't sit back and allow that fleet to be surrounded by what they considered hostile forces, or be willing to loose the stategic position it gave them.

Weird. It's been grounds for invasions/intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen etc, etc. Ah, but that was when we were they invaders, so it was OK.

NATO don't invade by putting boots on the ground, but they are/have been expanding and increasing the areas under their control through other means. A soft invasion if you will. The EU/NATO have attempted to court Ukraine into their fold for ages. Prior to the ousting of the pro-russian government the EU/NATO offered Ukraine various economic and diplomatic incentives, Russia then countered with a better offer, which the democratically elected Ukrainian government accepted. That led to internal protests and next thing you know the Pro-Russians are out and the EU/NATO get
what they've been hankering after.

Strange wouldn't you say? Especially when you consider that the eventual leader installed in the pro-eu government had been chosen as "the best candidate for the job" by the US secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs....before the Euromaiden movement had even begun.

You're incredibly naive if you think this whole situation hasn't been carefully engineered to keep the great western war machines fed and funded.