British PM Starmer offers to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine

PM Kier should go the whole hog and colonise Ukraine.

How else is the UK going to pay the cost of troops in Ukraine?

The end of Russia's war with Ukraine "when it comes, cannot merely become a temporary pause before Putin attacks again," Starmer wrote in the Daily Telegraph newspaper.

This is exactly right. Appeasement of dictators does not work, as we have seen throughout history.

If Putin's war of conquest succeeds here, he will be back for more. After Ukraine, Moldova would likely be next, followed by more land grabs in the Caucasus, then, if still not stopped, the Baltics.

The free world must step up. Trump neither understands nor cares, so the rest of us must do this.

Read this cowardly white feather pathetic posturing appeasement.

Starmer said he had not taken the decision to consider putting British servicemen and women "in harm's way" lightly, but securing a lasting peace in Ukraine was essential to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from further aggression.

This is gibberish abolishment of truly supporting Ukraine in it darkest hour.

A twisted cowardly reluctance, no refusal to fully comment to Ukraine, Europe security.

The US/Russia agenda for "peace" will succeed, while EU/UK holds a "emergency working lunch"

A summit of surrender.

Back Ukraine with every means necessary to repel Putin,

That is the definition of deterrence.

Then negotiate on Europe terms.

Or US/Russia will simply determine the terms, Ukraine/Europe will either put up or shut up.

Pipe down Starmer, you WEF puppet. How about NOT volunteer to drag British lives into a foreign conflict while your own country crumbles at home?! Focus on "keeping the peace" in your own crime-ridden, migrant-overrun cities before fantasizing about playing world police. What a clown.

Starmer is expected to travel to Washington soon and he suggested on Sunday that Britain could play a "unique role" in the negotiations to end the war, acting as a bridge between Europe and the U.S. during the peace process in Ukraine.

Awesome.

This is great news. No one in the world can beat the United Kingdom and the United States when unified into a single goal to bring peace. The UK knows how to do one thing very well. Thats how to negotiate. World leaders in that area.

This is welcomed and encourging news to end Putins invasion. Putin must feel the walls closing in on him slightly. Increased pressure coming Si, Comrade Putin of the KGB. End it. Get it done! We must never let the red star and the hammer and sickle be hoisted ever again.

Starmer said he was prepared to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by "putting our own troops on the ground if necessary".

Read, it is a fudge, it is a deceitful duplicitous political con, a cowards trap door, to promise pledge a commitment whilst "committing" zero nothing.

"Contribute, if necessary" is simply a betrayal, a spineless sham.

US/Russia will dictate terms,

Ukraine/Europe will suffer the consequences.

JD Vance its the target dead centre

They will require a UN mandate to operate as a peacekeeping force. Can't imagine that happening anytime soon. Russia will attack any force in Ukraine.

Devil is in the detail or lack thereof. Notice there are no numbers or details.

Another fact is the current state of the British armed forces. Literally decades and decades of spending cuts have hollowed it into a rather smallish force and top heavy too. For example, the Royal Navy has 40 admirals but only 26 combat ships (41 if one counts the king), or one flag officer per 800 personnel. A similar scenario exists in the other branches too - over 50 generals but not that number of battalions. Keep in mind they couldn't control a small portion of Helmand.

This proposal is merely hot air, possibly designed to get the EU to assemble a force. Problem is anyone who can count understands they can possibly - and this is a slim chance - get a 25-40 thousand man contingent together.

Bottom line: this is not a serious proposition for a multitude of reasons.

How many troops?

A few weeks ago, Britain announced a 100 year (!!!) partnership with Ukraine sending them 3 billion pounds a year (!!) in miitary aid for the foreseeable future. I am British myself but have no idea why this makes sense, especially given the run-down state of many UK cities.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgem31jekvo

My only conclusion is that Britain wants to feel much more important than it actually is on the world stage, something the country seems incapable of growing out of. Britain's actual standing has just been demonstrated by the US telling the Munich Conference that it will sign a peace deal with no EU or UK consultation. If the 100 year partnership and this new offer of troops go ahead, the UK will pay for and physically provide military protection for Ukrainian mines extracting minerals for the benefit of US companies, a very sorry state of affairs.

Look there is not the remotest possibility of a European/EU/UK peacekeeping force putting a single boot slipper, even a toe on Ukraine soil.

There is no political will to do so.

Not a sniff burp.

Only with a total deterrent, a military force, commitment, a resolve to fight with Ukraine army, navy, air force can you compel bring Putin to negotiate a sustainable peace.

A sensible position. Might have to wait until russia is forced to accept it but it should be ready to be implemented.

Five FamiliesToday 11:23 am JST

We must never let the red star and the hammer and sickle be hoisted ever again

You need to start by keeping the russian tricolor out of Kyiv.

PM Kier should go the whole hog and colonise Ukraine.

How else is the UK going to pay the cost of troops in Ukraine?

Only fascist dictator Putin wants to colonise Ukraine.

I guess you are very new to world conflicts. Ever heard of UN peacekeepers?

Ever heard of the UN Security Council? Any peacekeeping force will require a mandate from there and it won't be forthcoming.

JJE

Ever heard of the UN Security Council? Any peacekeeping force will require a mandate from there and it won't be forthcoming.

Putin will agree to it or he doesn’t get a peace deal. And he desperately needs a peace deal.

After WWII, America went into hibernation as it isolated itself from Europe’s troubles. This was great for the likes of Hitler who was allowed to rise and grow without being checked. Only after it was too late was action taken at a much higher and bloodier cost.

It looks like history might be repeating itself.

Ever heard of the UN Security Council? Any peacekeeping force will require a mandate from there and it won't be forthcoming.

Says someone that repeatedly stated it was fine for fascist Russia to have North Korean troops stationed on Russian territory.

Likewise, Ukraine can decide to have British - and any other - peacekeeping troops on HER territory.

Should say After WWI… not II

President Trump decides to call President Putin lets work this out, make the deal end the war.

No consultation with Europe, EU, UK,

They are all a political irrelevance, even Ukraine was an after thought.

Has the penny dropped?

JD Vance enter the fray.

Full on at The MSC.

Kicking every single EU/UK/Europe chair he comes into contact with, noses are collectively put out of joint.

This is all before the "main course" Tariffs all round.....

The message is clear

All these European leaders can feel the success that Trump is now bringing and breaking their necks to be seen as having played a part in it.

After 4 years of doing nothing when they could have.

JJE

Ever heard of the UN Security Council? Any peacekeeping force will require a mandate from there and it won't be forthcoming.

According to the UN Charter a member country Russia will not invade or attack another, Ukraine.

Russia is a Security Council member making it worse.

The UK does not need a UN Mandate to send troops to Ukraine just like North Korean troops fighting for Russia.

itsonlyrocknroll

The message is clear.

Yup. That Trump and Vance haven’t a clue about what they are doing. Trump is making the same mistake that he made with the Afghanistan by only negotiating with the Taliban and excluding the Afghan government. And we remember what a disaster that was.

Trump has no plan for a Ukraine endgame. Just stay nice with Putin and give him what he wants.

Putin doesn't "need" a peace deal. Russian forces are winning.

Now for the British military again. Look at the budget squeeze they are in. The army is the smallest in 200 years, recruitment is a shambles. Even before Starmer announced this, the bean counters are juggling to maintain existing commitments to Nato, the Aukus nuclear submarine programme and next-generation fighter jets within existing budgets. He has promised to increase the budget but nothing concrete has emerged. The tank force is now very small and the ones they handed over to Kyiv didn't perform well. They also handed over a significant portion of their artillery (reports in Feb. described it as "a critical shortage of artillery). Most of that is destroyed.

This theoretical operation could make the Charge of the Light Brigade look like a sensible military exercise.

So now that Europe is officially talking about “peacekeeping troops” that means they assume now the war will be ended.

not by them of course, but by Donald J. Trump.

posters here claim Trump is doing nothing to end the war, so why the UK change in rhetoric?

The EU gave $150 billion in aid to Ukraine—slightly more than the US.

JJE

Putin doesn't "need" a peace deal. Russian forces are winning.

What have they won? When will they reach Kyiv? When can the troops return to Russia?

Important to reflect on the words Moscow’s permanent representative to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, who bluntly stated last week that no peacekeeping force can legally operate without a mandate from the UN Security Council.

Another senior Russian diplomat also warned that "any contingent entering the territory of Ukraine without the consent and permission of Russia is a military target, with quite understandable consequences."

Fairly apparent Russia will attack any offensive force that proceeds onto the steppes, which are the traditional invasion routes into European Russia. Watch.

Also, the main line of contact is over 1000km long.

Russia needs a peace deal because thousands of its young troops are dying and economically Russia can't afford an endless war.

JJE

Important to reflect on the words Moscow’s permanent representative to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, who bluntly stated last week that no peacekeeping force can legally operate without a mandate from the UN Security Council.

Does that include North Korean’s?

Ok let take a very close look at what constitutes as "aid" in EU own numbers shall we.

I can, am willing to walk you through this as of 15/01/2025

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america/eu-assistance-ukraine-us-dollars_en?s=253

*Member States have made available close to $145 billion***** in financial, military, humanitarian, and refugee assistance.*

"Made available"

How much of that "aid" has actually been distributed directly to Ukraine government?

How much is in fact for a future possible "contribution" to recovery, reconstruction and modernization.

It is a fudge, a mirage, a sham

*Furthermore, in October 2024, the EU and G7 partners agreed to collectively provide loans of $50 billion to support Ukraine's budgetary, military and reconstruction needs, financed by extraordinary revenues from immobilized Russian sovereign assets. The EU will contribute $20 billion, the first $3.2 billion of which was disbursed in January 2025.*

The "billions" are in fact extraordinary revenues from immobilized Russian sovereign assets. still frozen, to balance, if ever released to pay back the pledge to settle those loans.

Countries sending the most aid to Ukraine.

https://www.statista.com/chart/28489/ukrainian-military-humanitarian-and-financial-aid-donors/

US 119 billion.

Ukraine Support Tracker

A Database of Military, Financial and Humanitarian Aid to Ukraine

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

Starmer and his pals need a reality check. Not only will Moscow retaliate against a theoretical deployment to aid Kyiv, but quite possibly against other military positions the UK holds around the globe. For example, those islands in the South Atlantic are a quite obvious and vulnerable target to a submarine flotilla. There are others. It would be foolish to assume contingency plans off all sorts haven't been formulated by the people at Frunzenskaya Embankment, 22, Moscow.

There will be no article 5 coverage too - another serious issue that obviously has not been fully considered. This is called biting off more than one can chew.

Think about it: as previously mentioned this is more about getting an "EU force" assembled, if anything. Such a force may include Germans, which Moscow will take a very dim view of indeed. Can't imagine French troops would win any popularity contests in this department either. Indeed, the last pan-European army which went in this direction included individuals from pretty much everywhere in continental Europe. Russia will not wheel out the welcome wagon for anyone, including the UK.

since I have know myself there has been fighting year' over but from what I see here is u. k. seem like they're willing but America want to hold meeting's with Ukraine and counter parts, I'm not saying that' s wrong but America can still send service men in kraine' I'm not aware of what went on in Afghanistan well as they say talk is cheap, I'm sure but as British prime minister said all European if it mean NATO as well' everyone as a role to play in this to get the job done!

BlacklabelToday 12:17 pm JST

posters here claim Trump is doing nothing to end the war

I haven't seen anyone claiming Trump is doing "nothing."

What many, myself included, are saying is that he's trying to end the war by appeasing Putin. It won't work.

JJEToday 12:29 pm JST

Important to reflect on the words Moscow’s permanent representative to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, who bluntly stated last week that no peacekeeping force can legally operate without a mandate from the UN Security Council.

And no-one can legally attack another sovereign state without a mandate from the UN Security Council. That didn't stop Putin.

Considering that one of the Security Council permanent members is the aggressor here, the words of Vassily Nebenzia are very likely to be ignored.

JJEToday 01:01 pm JST

Starmer and his pals need a reality check. Not only will Moscow retaliate against a theoretical deployment to aid Kyiv, but quite possibly against other military positions the UK holds around the globe.

How do you propose to do that with severely depleted and stretched forces? You can't even prosecute Putin's war of conquest and vanity without help from North Korea, China, and Iran.

No, Russia will continue doing what it has been doing in the UK and elsewhere: poisoning people, and paying thugs to burn down warehouses.

For example, those islands in the South Atlantic are a quite obvious and vulnerable target to a submarine flotilla.

I doubt your subs would make it before sinking.

Recently quite some empire building dreamers are hatching from the egg one after the other. lol

US 119 billion.

that’s the 3rd different number you claimed in a week. 70 then 90 now 119?

Moscow also well remembers a duplicitous plan called Operation Unthinkable - which was essentially a not-so-secret plan for a UK attack on Russia in the immediate postwar era, amazingly also utilizing what was left of the German army.

Hiding under a NATO flag won't happen. Same goes for an EU one, a union jack or whatever.

Another issue is the UK hasn't fought a symmetric conflict for some time, longer if one discounts their illegal Iraq invasion because that wasn't a fair fight. The Gulf War sought of qualifies and possibly those islands. But the UK armed forces is a shadow of itself in the Cold War era, having been reduced considerably. British Forces Germany simply doesn't exist.

The rest looks good on paper and impressive parading at Horse Guards Parade in those big hats (ironically made out of bearskin) and ceremonial red uniforms, with bands and that grenadiers song. But large-scale expeditionary deployments are not that viable (or even possible). And certainly not to confront the current combat honed Russian military, backed by a domestic military industry that has gone into overdrive.

Starmer really hasn't thought this one through.

Blacklabel

US 119 billion.

that’s the 3rd different number you claimed in a week. 70 then 90 now 119?

I didn't claim anything. I posted links. So take your choice or post your links.

The UK yet again standing up for Europe as it has always done.

World War 1, World War 2 the British defended freedom in Europe at great cost, eventually the cost of its empire, and went into debt for decades paying off loans and leases to survive huge wars.

So it is unsurprising that again the UK is prepared to stand up, put itself in harms way to defend European freedoms.

Much can be said against the UK for centuries of colonization and slavery around the world, but when it really matters they have a habit of standing up. That does not wipe out the poor choices it has made in the past but it does show they put their money where their mouth is when defending friends and freedom.

Well done England!

The national broadcaster there reported just two days ago the "UK military was "so run down" it could not lead any future peacekeeping mission in Ukraine." And that's according to a former chief of the British Army. He correctly pointed out even a mere 10,000 troop deployment would require 30-40 thousand to maintain even a six month rotation.

Realistically any theoretical force sent over there will require ten times that number, probably much more. Starmer needs to check with his deskbound generals (plenty of them) and his landbound admirals, not to mention consult his national broadcaster.

British troops includes, semantically speaking, Scottish troops, and you don't want to get on the wrong side of them.

It's long been acknowledged that Scots make up a disproportionate number of recruits to the British SAS (think Navy Seals but significantly harder).

And our esteemed vice president just insulted their entire country.

So, all of you 11 that down voted my comment.

@-11 want to see the return of the USSR or some hybrid version it? 

Or, how about the re-brand of Russia and the new communist party re-birth? 

That is what you want? Want to see? Want the world to deal with? Deep cold war? 

Want to see the end of business suites and the walking around of those corny weirdo black things rocket man is always seen in? That is what is to come.

If Putin had his way. If he has his way and takes Ukraine, guess who is next. 

Finland, Sweden, Norway, Poland. Could have the next gen Russian Communist flag flying in the wind on ever government building in each country. 

While statues of Putin built everywhere. Putin wants the old Russia back and keep good people under his boot. He is worse than Stalin.  

Bet me I am wrong! 

I know it, I know what is in this man’s heart. Communism to the core.

He would tear down everything Regan and Gorbachev built together.  

China and Iran right along with support for the new re-branded Russia -or- the restored USSR. This war was started in Ukraine. It ends in Ukraine. So does Putins end. He is ended by the end of 2025 or 2026.

@ Tokyo Guy

 SAS (think Navy Seals but significantly harder).

I beg to differ. Not taking anything away from The Royal Regiment of Scotland (SCOTS).

But DELTA Team and SEAL Team 6 (also known as DEVGRU) are the baddest unit on this planet hands down.

The SCOTS did not put Osama Bin Laden on his back on the deck of the USS Carl Vinson.

Anyone who has served or has been deployed in a conflict Internationally knows this.

Again, Not taking anything away from the Scottish unit. But even the French's Commandos Marine Unit, The GIGN I think are trained better.