To think Britain should have nothing to do with this war

[Foodtimeisit]

After yesterday's news, Britain shouldn't be the one funding war as USA has said they are out now. There's no chance Britain can fight this war alone with Ukraine against Russia.
Since this war started, our life has only become miserable with CoL increase.
AIBU to think we shouldn't have anything to do this war and we should fix our own problems first before giving away our tax money?

The war in Ukrain for Russia is about preventing Ukrain from joining NATO and having NATO forces on the Russian borders.

I invite you to find the Baltic countries on the map, in NATO for many years. Notice where the border is? Ukraine invasion has nothing to do with NATO and everything to do with taking what Russia believes should belong to them.
Finland has never had a good relationship with Russia.

@OldBun58 I don't think Finland has every had a "good relationship" with the Russians

There is a regular Mumsnetter who is Finnish. Maybe she'll hop onto the thread

Well said. Putin just used fear of NATO as an excuse for invading Ukraine. He always wanted to do it, as he believed it belonged to Russia. And he won’t give up his claim on it.

Ahhh.... you're one of those, are you?

What form do you think this 'liberation' would take, and in what way would that be any different from the way Russia is behaving towards Ukraine, and potentially to other states bordering Russia?

I'm aware that we're not permitted to call certain things out on here, so I'll do the MN-approved thing instead and report this account.

What are the rules, though? I didn't think the UK was allowed to use the assets to do anything, am I wrong?

How will Russia react to this?

@Foodtimeisit Ah, the classic “let’s just sit this one out” argument. Appealing, isn’t it? Just close the curtains, pretend the world isn’t on fire, and hope the smoke doesn’t seep in. But here’s the problem: geopolitics doesn’t work like a Netflix subscription you don’t get to opt out when it’s inconvenient.

Britain may not want this war, but it has skin in the game whether it likes it or not. You think stepping back means peace? No, it means handing the reins to people who don’t share your values, don’t care about your interests, and certainly won’t stop at Ukraine if they smell weakness. Because make no mistake Putin isn’t in this for a tidy border dispute. He’s in it to rewrite the rules of the post-Cold War order, and a fractured, passive West makes that a whole lot easier.

And about the cost of living crisis yes, it’s brutal. But you know what’s more expensive? War coming to your doorstep because deterrence failed. Britain doesn’t fund Ukraine out of charity; it does it because stopping an expansionist Russia there is a hell of a lot cheaper than dealing with the consequences here.
So, you want Britain to fix its own problems first? Fine. But just know that retreating from the world stage won’t make those problems go away. It just ensures that when the next crisis comes knocking, you’ll be dealing with it alone.

@JadededViewer I love reading posts like yours because it reminds me that there are many thoughtful intelligent people out there still and I do think for a while here in the UK it seemed to be 'unfashionable' to actually give a stuff about the messy realities of politics be they domestic or international affecting all aspects of life and yes that includes, supply chains, cost of living, opportunity, investments etc-

ODFOD

Your English is slipping....

Oh and the US is massively in debt.

Well he was worried about Ukraine joining NATO - because if it did, he wouldn't be able to invade Ukraine. He had to invade Ukraine to preserve Russia's right to invade Ukraine. He was left no choice! {insert sarcasm emoji}

Was it on Russia Today, by any chance?

I'm actually quite proud that my husband and his colleagues in the Armed Forces keep everybody safe in the UK, which allows people to not have to truly understand what's going on and to sleep safe at night. So I don't blame you for asking this. Truth is Putin has been threatening UK borders for years now, we're constantly sending out fighter jets to 'escort' them away from our border, we've needed Navy war ships and subs to keep him in check. This war is about protecting all of Europe and beyond (first Ukraine and next a NATO country and it's world war 3). America won't walk away imo (all talk and bluster), they can't, they're part of NATO and will have to go to war if Putin advances beyond Ukraine, so it's in their interest to keep him at bay. They also want the Ukraine minerals!!

You should be proud of your husband's work keeping people safe, often without the public ever fully understanding the cost, is no small feat. It's a tough, often thankless job, but crucial for maintaining peace.

And you're right about the constant vigilance needed at the borders; the UK’s military presence has been a key deterrent against Russian incursions.

This war isn't just about Ukraine; it’s about the integrity of Europe, and ultimately the stability of global order. If Putin were to advance beyond Ukraine, it could lead to a wider conflict. NATO's role here is pivotal.

It’s a high-stakes game, and the military forces are operating in a world where every move has consequences. So when people sleep soundly, it's largely because of the efforts of those like your husband protecting not just the UK but the very fabric of European security. Your perspective is a powerful reminder of the cost of peace.

Thank you. It's not always an easy life but it's worth it when you know that people are sleeping easy in this country. Not so for those in Ukraine.

That’s the thing much like with the security services, the projects, and the missions they undertake, it’s a high-stakes game. Overall, I’ll admit, I don’t think I would have the mettle for it, so to speak. That said, if Earth ever achieves world peace, then once humanity looks to the stars, it all starts again. Only this time, there’s an entire galaxy of potential allies and enemies waiting.

Peace was negotiated in the '90s when Ukraine gave up nukes in exchange for not being invaded by Russia.

Russia, USA, UK, and France negotiated the deal.

Who are they to negotiate with now? What should Russia be given?

Maybe this could be a solution ?

Point taken, I think you’re absolutely right about that!

I am getting lost in some of these posts - could you explain what you mean:

"In the years 2005–2006, Russia undertook several hostile trade actions directed against Ukraine and the Western countries"

Could you set out the hostile trade actions you refer to? I thought that at this time, Russia was working with the west in partnership? The problems started after 2007 after the Munich security meet?

@OldBun58 could you link the documentary by any chance?

@Reetpetitenot

What are the rules you referred to when you said "You think seized Russian assets should just be doled out to willy nilly by the UK govt? There are rules, which luckily the UK is willing to abide by" ?

indeed, fair point. Not 'oh but there will be NATO forces so close to border' though. NATO forces have been in the Baltics on the Russian border for years and years.

One of the most ill-educated posts on MN.
Do some reading. Understand the past. Then hang your head in shame.

US weaponry, money and the threat of their interference are extremely useful. They are not however strictly necessary for Europe to protect itself from Russian aggression. Russia has a lower GDP than UK, Germany, France, Italy and Canada INDIVIDUALLY. Russia has a similar population to just Germany + UK, never mind the rest of Europe.

I don't believe that anyone wants war, but Russia cannot be allowed to take Ukraine or they absolutely will increase aggression towards the next country they want.

Before the argument at the Oval, the US had proposed that Ukraine sign an agreement related to US rights in relation to minerals but also agreeing to trading provisions under which Ukraine would benefit economically and socially, and that with the US as a trading partner Ukraine would be in a stronger position both domestically and also on the global platform, and that Ukraine would agree to a ceasefire to stop further deaths and escalation as this is needed in order to make Ukraine strong economically and socially (all this is according to interviews since then). The US also talked to Russia in relation to trade. So the idea was that the situation was to move from an armed conflict situation to a trade situation to the benefit of all? Putting all these proposals into effect would clearly be no mean feat but the trade agreement was a first step.

The argument happened because of stresses to do with the meeting possible, and controversial subjects were raised at the press conference, but after this I thought that there had been some moves to get things back on track?