Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to not want to go to war

502 replies

TemporaryPosition · 28/02/2025 21:13

It's expensive and it hurts and it helps nothing, it just puts innocent sons, brothers, fathers, uncles and friends through the meat grinder. The only people who benefit are those who make a fortune from selling weapons and are granted contracts for reconstruction.

Haven't we learnt anything? What happened to "never again".

AIBU to really really really not want to be involved in any war?

OP posts:
kattaduck · 03/03/2025 08:20

ImmediateReaction · 03/03/2025 08:00

Mind sharing them?

Zelensky told me he would be prepared to give Donald Trump one of his demands - to sign the minerals deal that would give the US access to some of Ukraine's resources

He told us it was wrong at this stage to discuss giving up territory Russia has captured, and it was too early to be "talking about lines", which Starmer had mentioned earlier.

He would not apologise to Trump or express regret for anything that happened in the Oval Office, which at the moment, the US president's camp is repeatedly calling for.

So not really anything achieved is there yet though I think if Trump accepts and supports security guarantees provided by Europe everybody would win and with a united front peace talks with Russia should be a lot easier. I think Europe should be cut in on the Minerals deal too if a defence cooperation between US and Europe is still part of the plan. The ball is in Trumps court now.

There have also been calls for a partial truce for those who fear so maybe that's helpful.

Greyexpectations · 03/03/2025 08:22

TemporaryPosition · 02/03/2025 20:48

Replace the word "cultural identity" with "gender identity" and you'll understand why I am completely immune to the attempts to "how dare you" me.

Thing is, the 4 nations of the UK are far more similar than distinct. Not least because English people outnumber me where I live 5 to 1. We have all gone into the global blender. We have international values. People have vague romantic notions about Irish or Welsh or Scottish values, but they turn to vapour the second you try and pin them down. They don't really exist. We have UK British values and are made up of very diverse groups and very diverse interests. Which is not so strange because we are all neighbours. And I get that we have different histories but the problem is nobody really knows what that is.

Edited to add: my comments re Welsh language are based on my how I see those who speak the native language, not English, as those who have retained remnants of something more distinct.

Edited

Without derailing this into a TERF/ TRA debate, gender identity and cultural identity are not analogous.

However, they have some similarities. Being socialised as a girl differs to being socialised as a boy. Now, you can believe this is based on sexism tropes of what each sex ‘should’ be, or you can believe the gender roles have some grounding in sex-based characteristics - but you can’t deny that as it currently stands, there are differences.

Cultural identity is similar. Perhaps the notion of northerners being friendlier or the Welsh singing better or Londoners being more accepting of others come from an older understanding of each region, but to deny those differences exist is nonsense.

Even as the English language dominates the British Isles, the regional variations in accent and dialect remain. If what you believe about us only getting our culture from American content is true, we would be speaking in American accents and, like, going up at the of every sentence?

Culture is really hard to define - the lack of what you see as an ‘answer’ to you asking what Welsh culture is doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist - it means it’s hard to quantify. It is about food, music, storytelling, community, language, dialect, accent…it all weaves together to form a sense of ‘Welshness’ that is hard to pinpoint but easy to spot.

I’d suggest perhaps before denying the existence of Welsh culture you visit Wales. Perhaps the Welsh ‘expats’ you meet in Scotland commune with you in a way to seek common ground, rather than highlighting their ‘Welshness’.

Going back to Ukraine - they are fighting tooth and nail because they don’t want to be Russian, they want to be Ukrainian. Some insulated person telling them they are virtually Russian anyway so may as well capitulate is beyond offensive.

Greyexpectations · 03/03/2025 08:27

TemporaryPosition · 03/03/2025 08:09

"Barely left their home country"? What does that mean

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.

Wildflowers99 · 03/03/2025 08:29

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.

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 08:35

Wildflowers99 · 03/03/2025 08:29

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.

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

1457bloom · 03/03/2025 08:36

Ukraine's minerals belong to them not the US.

kattaduck · 03/03/2025 08:42

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 08:35

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

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

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 08:49

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

kattaduck · 03/03/2025 09:02

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 08:49

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

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.

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 09:07

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.

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 09:14

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

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

kattaduck · 03/03/2025 09:19

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 09:07

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.

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.

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 09:21

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

kattaduck · 03/03/2025 09:21

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 09:14

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

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

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

kattaduck · 03/03/2025 09:22

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 09:21

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

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

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 09:28

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.

Wildflowers99 · 03/03/2025 09:32

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 09:28

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.

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

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 09:33

@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.

Wildflowers99 · 03/03/2025 09:35

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.

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 09:38

Wildflowers99 · 03/03/2025 09:35

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.

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.

Greyexpectations · 03/03/2025 09:50

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 09:38

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.

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).

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 09:55

@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.”

Wildflowers99 · 03/03/2025 10:04

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 09:38

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.

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.

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 10:10

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?

Wildflowers99 · 03/03/2025 10:20

EasternStandard · 03/03/2025 10:10

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?

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.

Swipe left for the next trending thread