Should British Troops Be Sent To Ukraine?

[Untitled]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/starmer-confirms-hes-prepared-to-put-british-troops-on-the-ground-in-ukraine/
 

kier starmer has said that he is willing to commit british ground forces to ukraine ahead of an emergency summit in Paris. he also suggested that he was willing to accept the "responsibility that comes with potentially putting British servicemen and women in harm’s way" which would imply a combat role fighting against russia. 

do you agree that british forces should be sent there? 

[mushroom25]

// he's seen a great opportunity to play with Trump and break Nato up //

if Putin gets what he wants via Trump's attitude to anything that's not American, could that empower the Chinese to go after Taiwan? will the USA do anything to stop them?

[nicebloke1]

Cast your mind back to when Putin gathered his slaughtermen on Ukraines boarder saying he had no intention of invading, it was just a SMO. They were there on that boarder for sometime doing nothing, but Putin was, what was he doing? nothing more than listening, listening to what was coming out of Nato, ie, shall we respond, shall we not, what is the best form of action? One day Putin got up and EH, their are not going to do anything too stop me, lets go for it.

 Putin is a chess player and is way ahead of our  present thinking and pre- planning.

[Untitled]

putin also believed that ukraine would fall within a couple of months. although he is now going to win it has been a very costly victory indeed. russia's economy has been harmed terribly and it has lost huge amounts of soldiers and resources. he's not some genius. 

[youngmafbog]

//I think covertly, there are many things going on beyond what the public is being fed.//

Of course there is, but as usual the TDS overtakes rational thinking by many.

The options are clear

1. Keep funnelling cash into Ukraine (and some appears to have goone missing) and allowing massive loss of life (to both sides).  Already best part of a million and it it ratchets up it will be a faster rate.  And who is going to pay for it, the West is broke.

2. Put Western boot on the ground.  Well we see many wanting no peace but would they go over and pick up arms and fight I wonder.  Or is it just too easy as an armchair warrior?  Either way this option is not possible at it would without doubt lead to WW3.

3.  Come to some sort of agreement.  Sticks in the craw a bit I have to admit but the reality is there is little choice.

If we do achieve 3 then a DMZ is required, at least in the short term.  I guess we have to accept some responsibity and muck in, although we do need to see the rest of Europe in there, not just us and the French as the main parties as usual.

 

[nicebloke1]

When Putin offers up chess pieces for the taking, Don't take them. You will lose the game.

He is still bombing the crap out of Ukraine, attention has been turned away by the false talks.

[youngmafbog]

And today there was a Ukrainian drone attack on Russia.

Of course they will carry on fighting, what do you expect them to do?

[nicebloke1]

12.24, Bullies dont care about the cost of their actions, yes he may have been a little shocked after we decided to help Ukraine with arms, but only just enough, that just enough prolonged this war nothing more.

Bullies never ever stop until you STOP them, other than the latter they will still keep coming back time and time again.

[Untitled]

i think putin does care about the power and security of his regime and the losses he has incurred are a threat to that. it's very doubtful whether he would have done this if he knew it would cost so much. 

[nicebloke1]

I can't really add anymore than what I believe, other than Putins been proved time and time again he's  liar on an epic scale, and I can't see him ever changing.

[gramps85]

Before we deploy our troops to Ukraine I would like to know what their role will be. Acting as peace keepers means what? If, after a peace treaty Putin renews his attack on Ukraine, will our troops fight or will they withdraw, and if the later it would a waste of time their being there.

[naomi24]

//Acting as peace keepers means what? //

 

That made little sense to me too, gramps.  If peacekeepers are required there is no real peace.

[nicebloke1]

And thre's nothing more Putin would love than a shootout with the UK.

[nicebloke1]

And giving him an excuse to lob a missile our way, knowing the US are on the sidelines.

[jackthehat]

No, I don't think they should.

I'm not sure we can rely on Putin, or his successor, keeping to any of the peace-terms agreed, especially not after he has has a bit of a breather and a chance to build-up his armaments, again.

[Clone]

The man who won't police his own country's borders wants to police a foreign country's borders.🤔

 

[Old_Geezer]

Trying to ignore the "can" that replaced the "can't" I typed last time 😡

 

Unsure how Trump is testing the waters unless it's a test of his allies patience.  Putin won't retreat from all invaded areas; Zelensky won't accept losing land to Russia's aggression. The result is nothing is likely to be agreed and the next Trump move has to be more of those trade war tariffs he's so keen on of late; but directed towards Russia and those trading with Russia this time.

 

Sort of makes any peacekeeping questions rather moot.