Starmer's "Coalition of the Willing"

[Nothatgingerpirate]

Not an AIBU really, but Starmer is sending British troops to Ukraine, on the ground and in the air, after three years of conflict.

Thoughts?

I probably didn't manage to remove the poll.

I’m not sure what best course of action is other than not sitting on our arses waiting for Putin to take Europe country by country while Trump cheers him on…

As a peace keeping force with other European partners after the Peace Deal is signed!

Let's be very clear about what he's talking about! He isn't talking about joining the war as some other threads would like us to think!

Willing to do what?
Willing to send money, men and weapons?
Willing to press the nuclear button?
Willing to fly around the world on private jets talking shite.

As we can't afford the first-not without massive costs to our bills and security-and hopefully, pressing a nuclear button is a step too far-that only leaves the last option and that is what I expect will happen, with backdrops of flags and leaders wearing flak jackets.

The war will drag on before eventually a peace treaty is wheeled out.

That's right - willing to do what?

Also I didn't realise there were 19(?) threads on this already! 🙃

My very worried husband just alerted me to these breaking news on an independent channel.

Some people from my country volunteered to go to Ukraine, but the rest are largely ignoring the whole thing.
(Czech Republic).

Obviously - what else. Quite close, we are.

He’s not sending troops now to Ukraine, what he’s proposing is that British troops and planes would provide peacekeeping support in the case of a ceasefire deal.

I haven't read that we're sending troops but weapons and more funding, about 3bn.

Troops will be something to be discussed during peace talks.

Well, Starmer has pledged "Boots on the Ground."

That may be for a peacekeeping force but it doesn't take a very big bootstride for those boots to turn into an active force.

What if Zelensky-who is already running out of willing men-asks the willing Starmer to allow his forces to fight? The boots are already there and Starmer , like Barkiss, is willing.

That might not happen-none of us knows what will happen in such a volatile situation- but it isn't an impossible scenario.

This won’t happen.

Thank you Mystic Meg! Do you have the winning lottery numbers too.

If you know anything about this conflict you’d know the question of UK boots on the ground has gone round and round in the public discourse. The Prime Minister and other NATO leaders have been very clear that offensive troops aren’t on the table. Ukraine may have some manpower issues (though I wonder if you are just parroting what Vance said) but there is virtually zero chance of any NATO or European member states sending in offensive forces.

If the UK send peacekeepers it would be no different to other peacekeeping missions. If Russia break any ceasefire, and I have no doubt they would through proxy-forces, then that’s a different story.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9vygkzkkrvo

Speaking at a news conference shortly after the meeting of leaders, Starmer said four points had been agreed:

• to keep military aid flowing into Ukraine, and to keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia

• that any lasting peace must ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and security and Ukraine must be present at any peace talks

• in the event of a peace deal, to boost Ukraine's defensive capabilities to deter any future invasion

• to develop a "coalition of the willing" to defend a deal in Ukraine and to guarantee peace afterwards

Come on DuncinToffee!

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good bit of scaremongering 🤣

@igotjelly.

Yes, I know- as you write- that, "The Prime Minister has been very clear. that offensive troops aren't on the table."

However, how many times have you heard a politician, including Keir Starmer, begin a statement with, "Let me be very clear. Such and such won't happen."?

How many times, have you seen them keep to their word?
The answer, that even a 12 year old child could provide, is not many.

Now, here the PM says he is being very clear and you have repeated that assertion for him. He may mean it. He may not. He may be hopeful that what he is being clear about will come to pass.

But of course, in any situation and especially in a volatile one like this, it would be silly to simply believe what he is saying, to trust that this time a politician will stick to their word without any twists, turns or Jesuitical manoeuvres.

So, we can hope that there will be no offensive troops on the ground but unless this is your first time hearing a politician vow that they are being very clear and you have no experience of what usually happens when they are clear about something, then it would be foolish to trust them.

Sir Keir Starmer has no idea what will happen. They are short of troops in Ukraine-it may suit you to think that people have licked that fact off the floor but it is nonetheless true.

It will be very tempting for Zelensky to ask Starmer if his troops can be used offensively. Starmer may not give into th e emotional pressure that will be heaped on him and may say no but I, and many others won't fall flat on our backs if he says yes.

Finally, I don't know what will happen and nor do you but I think it would be failing in a public duty to refrain from pointing out to you that politicians lie.

Starmers plan, unfortunately, relies on US support...and I don't think we're going to get that. His Director of National Intelligence is painting the UK and the rest of Europe as enemies of the US.