3d ago

Fears raised over Starmer's plan for troops in Ukraine

morningstaronline.co.uk Fears raised over Starmer's plan for troops in Ukraine

You're viewing a single thread.

37 comments

British troops in Ukraine would absolutely be unacceptable to any peace agreement that Russia is likely to sign so whats the point of making all this noise.
- Only complete domination of Ukraine would be acceptable to Russia, so what's the point of anything?
  
  Any evidence for this?
  
  Apart from:
  Exhibit A. Russia invades Ukraine.
  Fucking Tankies.
  
  The USA invaded iraq - they didn't have any intention of making it sovereign territory. That's not enough evidence of intent.
- That's exactly why he said it, same reason Boris went over and told him not to negotiate peace.
- To create pressure for a deal to be signed.
  
  So in order to get peace you want to escalate the war?
  There is no sense in this argument. When has increasing the presence of troops ever led to fruitful peace talks?
  From their perspective it just looks like we're about to invade Russia for a regime change
  
  From their perspective... [Insert nonsense here]
  Us being in Ukraine is only a problem for those countries that are invading. We are not going to invade Russia, we are standing up and protecting people who are being shot by a dictatorship. If they stop shooting and throwing bombs at civilians then there isn't a problem.
  I wish we had the balls to stick some peacekeepers in Palestine.
  
  Right i see why you think that, its a very seductive argument. We are in the right, we protect the weak, therefore what could possibly be bad about our presence?
  However, thats not how real politics works. Russia will undoubtedly see this as a threat and it will escalate the war further. It doesn't matter if they are correct to view us as such, but they will.
  Unless Russia agrees to some unilateral peacekeeping arrangements as part of a peace deal, which seems unlikely, then why should we poke the beast?
  There is also the fact that peacekeeping is not our forte, remember iraq, Afghanistan? Do you really think that pro-russian militias won't retaliate? It doesn't matter that we are in the right, our presence will not lead to peace.
  I think Einstein said you can't simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Its time to choose which you want.
  Regarding your Palestine comment, its just a completely different situation. Im not sure its comparable. Peacekeeping forces might be part of a settlement reached by hamas and Israel but it would have to be acceptable to both parties otherwise it leads to more violence.
  
  Basically, don't try and counter Russia's aggression, just roll over and let them steam roll over everyone. Let them do what they want. Don't dare to help out allies from being attacked by their aggressive neighbour, that would be bad.
- The bully that starts the war doesn't need to be appeased to stop the war. They need to be defeated.
  History tells this is the only way. Appeasement just drags the way out until the bully bullies again.
  
  Yes i also did gcse history and learnt about Chamberlain
  Perhaps we could avoid war instead by making Russia a geopolitical ally rather than continually making them an enemy? Its not like we have any trouble making strategic alliances with other disreputable states.
  No this chat by starmer is sabre rattling stupidity , what i dont fully understand is why they do it. The USA will be taking all the spoils from this war.
  
  Perhaps we could avoid war instead by making Russia a geopolitical ally rather than continually making them an enemy? Its not like we have any trouble making strategic alliances with other disreputable states.
  Have we just conveniently memory holed world politics post the annexation of Crimea where we tried to ameliorate relations with Russia and what did that get us? A couple hundred thousand dead Ukrainians and Russians?
  
  Im not sure what you're referring to but i do know that USA has been interfering in the Ukraine which Russia considers its backyard. Imagine if Russia started arming and funding militias in alaska or mexico? (I know you're probably going to bring up Russian bots but that isnt the same, and the USA does that kind of shit all the time).
  Would we have had a couple hundred thousand dead if we hadn't armed Ukrainian military? No the war would have ended if Russia just took the corridor it seems to want. If Russia had taken the whole country there would have been many resistance fighters but nowhere near the scale we've seen.
  In any case , while we've been talking the russian minister at the talks with trump has said they wont accept peacekeeping forces anyway. So this is all futile speculation. There won't be peacekeeping forces unless you want to prolong the war.
  
  Perhaps we could avoid war instead by making Russia a geopolitical ally rather than continually making them an enemy?
  You're making this out as if this is Europe's fault and Russia is the innocent party here. Perhaps Russia should stop fucking about in Europe, pull out of Ukraine and start to work on thawing diplomatic relations. The ball is in their court.
  No this chat by starmer is sabre rattling stupidity , what i dont fully understand is why they do it.
  Probably to act as a deterrent to further Russia escalations and help with the security of Ukraine.
  
  We were making Russia a geopolitical ally. Russia decided to invade Ukraine. Appeasement met with backstabbing.
  
  How do you defeat a nuclear armed adversary without causing the end of the world?
  
  You don't do it by appeasing then and allowing them to invade neighbors.
  
  You remember that adversary lives in the same world. And has the same to lose as you. Sorta the point of MAD.
  If you don't think that adversary fears the end of the world. Then you do not believe anything but total domination will ever appease them. So trying is just the ends of your world in exchange for their overthrowing everything they don't believe in.
  If they do not care about ending the world. Any appeasement is just a delay to their ultimate goals and your death. If they care. They have the same nuclear armed adversary argument to not use their arms.
  Just bowing to the bully only reinforces the effectivity of them being a bully. And ensure the same threat will be used for anything they want.
  
  My point is the only way to "defeat" them is to literally have boots in Moscow, if you try to do that then they they have no reason not to launch their nukes, they already lost. That's the point of MAD, any attempt to fully defeat a nuclear armed nation means everyone loses, which is why Russia will never attack a nuclear armed nation.
  If you only push them back to whatever border you want, then they will still be just the other side of that border shooting at you.
  
  Only way to “defeat” them.
  Nope, it is also to make taking Ukraine more expensive than they can afford.
  Something happening at a rapid rate. Russia was not very fiscally stable before the war. With western sanctions and the huge cost. It is rapidly collapsing. And likely to face its own internal leadership challenge eventually.

37 comments