Ukraine

[dubsie]

I was reading today that Bill Clinton knew it was only a matter of time before Putin invaded the Ukraine. He knew this in 2011.

If this was the case why did this government welcome such high volumes of Russian investment into the Uk. It's left us extremely vulnerable to corruption and weaker to the effects of the current sanctions.

The last Labour government sanctioned Putin heavily after the assassination of two Russian businessesmen but this bunch appeared to welcome the regimes cronies with open arms.

There is now a war on our doorstep thousands of civilians have died. The current stance is to keep pumping weapons into the Ukraine until Russia falls....but what then. If Russia falls one possible outcome is an even more unstable situation.

When have Conservatives ever put morals before money?

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and we let them get away with it.

Yes they did and there has been war there even before that. Russian separatists and Ukraine loyalists.....it's a war that will rage on until there is some form of agreement between Russia and the Ukraine.

That's the reality of war it only ends once there is an agreement....it's rarely a matter of who wins or loses.

I personally can't see how Russia can win but I fear what would happen if Russia implodes....that itself poses huge problems for borders countries

I'm very unhappy that we are going out of our way to supply long range missiles to Ukraine, when nobody else is.

This , when we are being lectured on the need to raise interest rates, and inflation is continually upwards.

Why are you unhappy about it? It’s the right thing to do.

Ukraine winning isn't about Russia falling.

It's about Russian military going back to Russia

We are a very tiny country, with the worst deficit in Europe. We are making the poorest pay more every month. Kids are going without food. Yes we can send a big pile of weapons at £2m each.

Also I'm concerned we are taking steps which nobody else is willing to take. We are paying £2m per missile. Also , what is the reason US and others won't go this far? Which they won't. Will there be consequences? Will we pay them?

Obviously, you don't know the answers to these questions, any more than I do.

I don't like it, and for a number of reasons.

That doesn't mean that I support Russia. I just don't think we are in a position to actually lead the fight back (after Ukrainian, obviously). We just aren't that big, any more, even though there is a section of the population which hasn't noticed.

@Yellowdays, different countries are providing various arms and assistance. We are not providing some help,not the most. What, specifically, is your problem with the UK involvement?

Is it just cost?

This delivery of weapons isn’t entirely selfless you know. There will be big investment opportunities in Ukraine when this is all over, and we are making sure that we are going to be one of the first in line. That aside, given the money that has just been blown on the Coronation, I have no issue with this sort of spend whatsoever. I was just reading that a lot of these missiles were basically sat there gathering dust so we should be using them for their intended purpose - and this is definitely it.

The UK isn't a small country, nor an insignificant one. We are the fifth largest economy, the second largest contributor to NATO. Depending on how you cut it, we are top 5 for military spend top, 10 for military power. We have military resources, and we have rightly decided to support a European neighbour in defending their country.

I wouldn't have spent it on the coronation either. I can't be more clear what my objection is. Repeating it won't make it clearer.

The money we're spending on the long(ish) range missiles for Ukraine comes from the Defence budget and goes into the UK's profitable and successful arms industry, providing jobs and taxes and probably a whack of cash for someone close to the Tory party.

It isn't charity and it wouldn't be spent on the poor in this country.

Nobody is asking you to repeat your objection.

@dubsie, what do you mean if Russia implodes?

We are certainly providing more powerful weapons, according to yestodays press.

(Which will cost more than those provided by others).

No one wants Russia to implode. Just to go back to their own borders.
Appeasement rarely works.
Better to stand up for what you believe in, and contribute to restoring the status quo.

The Americans have delivered 30 odd tanks at £10million each this week. With more to come in autumn.

Who is talking you that we are contributing more financially than other countries? Because they're telling you lies @Yellowdays. Is it Farage the Putin Puppet?

I don't support any escalation of this conflict, long range missiles will escalate this.

People forget about India, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, South America.....how the world views our actions is very important. I'm not saying we should shy away from making decisions that might not please everyone but imagine if China, India and South Africa decide to start supplying arms.

Does that mean you support giving Ukraine just enough to maintain the stalemate in which thousands are dying rather than giving Ukraine the tools to expel the invaders back to their own borders?

All this talk of escalation……fact is, if Putin wants to escalate things, he will. What we do or don’t supply in terms of weapons will have little to do with it.

Escalation? There is only one country that is trying to erase a national identity.

De-escalation is simple, withdraw Russian troops back behind Russian borders

I couldn’t agree more.

I don't support giving any weapons to the Ukraine. What we should have done is given the Ukraine the choice of western troops on the ground before Russia invaded. Basically defended them.

With large numbers of western boots on the ground Russia would not have invaded and 300,000 lives would have been saved.

That's where I stand....a show of force to prevent war.

It’s not ‘The Ukraine’, that’s the Russian styling.