Starmer ‘ready’ to put UK troops on ground in Ukraine to protect peace

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gxgxl3grgo

Posted by SunderedValley

5 comments

  1. Except UK citizens don’t want to fight? How does the Labor government even begin to rationalize this to voters?

    All polling, policy, and even interviews from call ins to street interviews seem to indicate no one in the general public wants to go over there to fight and die. From all accounts very few people millennial or younger are in favor of this, let alone the idea that an Article 5 incident pulls them into a conscription scenario. This is also the main voter base for Labor. It seems so counterintuitive and unnecessary.

    A commitment the UK can’t and won’t live up to.

  2. > As of 1 July 2024, the British Army comprises 74,296 regular full-time personnel, 4,244 Gurkhas, 25,934 volunteer reserve personnel and 4,612 “other personnel”, for a total of 109,086.

    What troops?

    > Ukraine Must Be In Position Of Strength Before Any Peace Talks, NATO Chief Says

    > Ukraine cannot “at this moment negotiate from a position of strength,” Rutte said. “We have to do more to make sure by changing the trajectory of the conflict that they can get to that position of strength.”

    To protect what peace?

  3. Before people start yapping he’s talking about putting troops there after a peace deal as a security guarantee pretty different from sending troops to fight and far more plausible. It’s also indicative that they are already thinking the war will end soon ish

  4. Oh look, it’s UK PM and selective human rights lawyer Keir Starmer, who will stand up for what’s “right” when it aligns with UK foreign policy but will support war crimes and genocide when it aligns with the views of his most generous donors.

  5. Of course britain races to suck America’s dick and give in to a peace deal not agreed to by Europe or Ukraine. Ridiculous. Europe, Ukraine, IGNORE ANY PEACE DEAL MADE BY FOREIGN ACTORS WITH NO STAKE.

Comments are closed.