8 ms·
'We stand with Ukraine for as long as it may take' – Keir Starmer tells Zelensky
- thunkshift1 2y agoWhay does “stand” mean here? Just make statements in public? uk isn’t doing much tbh
- TomK32 2y agohttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-support-to-ukraine-factsheet/uk-support-to-ukraine-factsheet https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-support-to-ukr... £7.8 billion in military support £5 billion in non-military support
- thunkshift1 2y agoWhich is LOT less than us or german contribution.
- duxup 2y agoAt this point wouldn’t mind seeing Europe stand up and take the symbolic role of “leader of the free world” since my country’s administration seems to have quit on it.
- sirolimus 2y agoLooks like Europe won't have a choice at this point. The parabolic behavior of the leaders of the US is destabilizing and hard to cooperate with.
- Kenji 2y ago[dead]
- hnthrowaway0315 2y agoI wonder whether EU has the capacity to pull up itself. After all it is not really an EU state. And do ordinary EU people really want that? I mean double the defence budget (or triple in certain cases), double the standing army and etc.
- preisschild 2y ago> I mean double the defence budget (or triple in certain cases), double the standing army and etc. If we would actually do defense at the EU level, we could use that money a lot more efficiently through economies of scale and 2-4% of GDP would probably be enough to defeat russia.
- hdjjhhvvhga 2y agoThat would make a lot of sense. Also, if done in smart way, a significant part of the budget could be used in the service of the society during peace time.
- preisschild 2y agoI'd be wary of doing that, because that would mean you'd be unprepared if the peace time ends quickly. But if we move some of those "services of the society" to the EU level, we could more efficiently run them (against, through economies of scale) and make them better at the same expanse.
- forgot-today 2y agoWDYM? If alternative is war even closer to home, then doubling or tripling budget is nothing.
- sirolimus 2y agoPeace in Europe benefits everyone—not just the EU, but also the U.S., Asia, and even Russia itself. If we fail to invest in defense, we risk more death and suffering from unchecked Russian expansion and bullying. It’s hard to see where you stand here. You seem unconcerned about Russia taking Ukraine and then the Baltic states, as if that would be a positive outcome. Is the full surrender and merging of Ukraine into Russia something you desire?
- lazyeye 2y agoWhat happens if Ukraine is given sufficient support to start winning and Putin decides to go nuclear? I don't want Russia to win either but we also have to operate in reality.
- preisschild 2y agoIf we don't the world will continue getting a lot more unstable. More countries will be invaded & annexed, more genocides take place and international laws will be violated without anyone enforcing them
- hnthrowaway0315 2y agoIs it the famous "We will give them every support, short of help" line? /s quote: from "Yes Prime Minister"
- mjburgess 2y agoOf course, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSD1d-6P6qI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSD1d-6P6qI
- room271 2y agoNo, that is too cynical a take. The UK gives a lot of resources to Ukraine, has offered 'boots on the ground' as part of a peace deal, and is increasing its defence going forward.
- lazyeye 2y agoSo we'll give Ukraine just enough support to keep the meat-grinder going but not enough to win the war. If Ukraine looks like winning at any point, Putin may escalate to tactical nuclear and we can't risk that. So after a couple more years of the meat-grinder, Ukraine no longer has enough young men to maintain a viable force. What happens then?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- cduzz 2y agoWell, we're going to find out, soon, what it's like to have Germany with nukes, with Sweden with nukes, with Finalnd with nukes, with Poland with nukes. If you're the PM of Estonia, the only thing keeping you safe is either an "agreement" that you'll be protected or nukes. [edit] And agreements, at least signed by the U.S.A. appear to be bankrupt. So, on what earth do you live on that we're safer now?
- lazyeye 2y agoWe are not safe. But successfully protecting Ukraine will bring us closer to nuclear war than we've ever been and we need to acknowledge that.
- cduzz 2y agoHorseshit. Making sure every country on earth has nukes is way more likely to cause nukes to be used than beating the russian army out of Ukraine. First -- Do his nukes even work? Or have they been replaced with cardboard "Nuke Go Here" boxes? Also -- What's Putin going to nuke? He can try some battlefield nuke, and then have his army march through it? That's assuming that his troops have more than a week of training for "marching through a place we just nuked" Or maybe he'll nuke Kiev? I don't think that'd make much difference in letting russia gain ground. Or maybe Putin is planning on nuking Rotterdam because of the F-16s? Nukes may make china and india stop supporting him, they may provoke more retaliation from the west. But nukes certainly won't change much unless the plan is to just glass the whole of Ukraine, in which case I'm pretty sure that France or England may accidentally glass Moscow even if the USA doesn't.
- brink 2y agoTrump made the right move. I've had enough of the wars and proxy wars. Peace is on the table, they should have taken it. So glad I don't live in the UK right now.
- 4ndrewl 2y agoThe same peace that we got after Crimea was invaded? It's sweet that you've had enough of the wars, like you might have had enough of a Netflix series. The peace on the table is no such thing. It's a temporary appeasement of a murderous dictator who is against everything the US used to stand for. Shameful.
- bigyabai 2y agoAmerica did have leverage to negotiate a serious and unprecedented peace, too. They have the weapons to power-gap Russian equipment, a Navy that could crush Russia's fleet in an hour of surface combat, and enough soldiers to deter even a multi-coalition Russian attack. There are a multitude of ways for America to offer support without putting America at risk. Abandoning control in the European theater while doubling down on the Levant is like if the USSR announced they forfeit the Cold War to focus on Afghanistan. It is a bloody warpath, dictated by nonsense. Trading one proxy war for another isn't going to save the American economy, or improve American security.
- brink 2y agoWhat is the alternative you're proposing here? Russia has nukes. Your hubris will lead you to despair and either endless war or at least one nuclear bomb taking out a city. I'm not trying to be "american", I'm trying to be rational.
- siliconc0w 2y agoIf they wanted to, they could stop sheltering and seize Russian oil wealth hiding in the UK or stop the 'shadow fleet' used to export oil by sanctioning the importers. Probably won't though.
- theideaofcoffee 2y agoPRESIDENT (over radio) As the situation develops, one thing must be understood above all others... People of Gotham, we have not abandoned you. BLAKE What does that mean? GORDON It means we're on our own.
- recursivedogs 2y ago[flagged]
- mikewarot 2y agoI'm quite sure sufficient resources exist in Ukraine to rapidly build Thermonuclear weapons to stave off Russia. It wouldn't surprise me if someone else supplied a few covertly to hold off the Tyrant.
- layer8 2y agoHow would that possibly work without Russia turning all Ukraine cities into nuclear wasteland in retaliation?
- mikewarot 2y agoMutual Assured Destruction.... a tried and true method for holding off Armageddon. Especially frightening for Putin is the possibility of nuclear armed Ukrainian sympathizers loose inside of Russia.
- mjburgess 2y agoSince at least Obama, the US has been trying to exit Europe and form a dentent with Russia so they can "pivot to Asia". Europe trying to undermine the US exit from ukraine will be just the excuse trump is looking for to withdraw (the 100,000+ troops, and massive military spending on NATO in the EU, etc.). This means no government in Europe will actually do anything about Ukraine -- the risk to the collapse of NATO is too great. Ukraine has always been a bit of political theatre for the west, and all Trump is doing is forcing the show to end -- which is one of the real shocks to the system. What is most bitterly disliked by both the public and elite in europe is that they might actually have to do something on behalf of ukraine that risks their own security and, of course, they never will and never would. Europe humiliated as a paper tiger will give Trump no great headlines in european newspapers: this is the real psychological shock. Trump actually means to end the war, and if that fails, withdraw US support. What a predicament for everyone who wants the war to continue -- they'd actually have to risk something. And hence, this will all be over very quickly. It's well known the russian elite contain a large pro-western contingent, though the public in russia is not and much more pro-war than the elite. Putin is looking at a way of returning the economic situation to a pre-war state without angering the public -- without it "all being for nothing" and so on. So the deal Trump will offer will be accepted there, and if it isnt accepted in the EU he'll withdraw US support. There has not been, to my knowledge, a single proposal by the pro-war axis to achieve any other outcome. And of course not, the pro-war sentiment in the west, is a paper-tiger charade to boost their own credibility and punish russia for informing them that the 2000s are over and the USA is not the lone superpower in the system. That Russia (, and china of course) intend to act like the US in their own spheres of influence, and use their militaries to achive political ends. This was only supposed to be a US privilige. The world is now a game between US, Russia and China -- and the leaders of these nations are looking to rapidly normalize and stablizle relations -- because they are each their significant threats -- everything else is a distraction. Especially the EU, which will do nothing to change that -- indeed: why bother? Sit back and get rich whilst the bullies waste their money in fights.
- cheema33 2y ago> Trump actually means to end the war What he really wants is for Ukraine to surrender its lands to Russia. And he is also unwilling to ask Russia to give any concessions. We did sign the Budapest memorandum. Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for security guarantees from the US. Shame on us for not honoring it. Also, Ukraine and Europe is not pro-war. They want Russians to go back to their own country. You are calling people who are defending their country from an invader, and their supporters, pro-war axis.
- legitster 2y agoI don't know where so many people justify that Europe militarizing is a good outcome. Best case, it's a massive drain on the global economy. Worst case, we are stuffing the powderkeg for WWIII. There's a reason the US was happy to pay more than it's fair share for NATO for so long. If we start to see tariffs take off internationally, like we did back with the Smoot Hawley tariffs 100 years ago, we are literally recreating the environment that created WWII, this time with Ukraine playing the part of Manchuria.
- duxup 2y agoIs Europe “militarizing” any different than now? Regardless, I don’t think they’ve been given a choice. And if nobody helps out anyone, you get everyone “militarizing”.
- sirolimus 2y agoSo what are you proposing then? That Russia just takes Ukraine?
- legitster 2y agoThe US to continue funding NATO and Ukraine.
- selykg 2y agoTrump is holding that all hostage and is likely rooting for Russia (or worse). We know he idolizes him. So, Zelenskyy is supposed to just lay down and give up everything for a lopsided deal that will just hurt them more? The US is just going to take advantage of the entire situation. That’s what we have in power now, opportunists.
- sirolimus 2y agoBut the US doesnt want to. Are u paying attention?
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoSadly Trump has ended that as a solution. No one trusts the US's word that it will defend them now. Also, that defence now comes with a 'must kiss the king's ring' and 'protectorates must repay us with us dictating the terms when they are most vulnerable'.
- room271 2y ago[flagged]
- hdjjhhvvhga 2y agoHN has a lot of Russian and Chinese users so stories related to these are very quickly flagged.
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoI feel like I see a lot more communicating/defending/explaining on Chinese adjacent discussion. Like legit outlaying of reasoned depth to their positions, background, etc that really helped me understand their view. I actually wish there was more of it here even if it gets political. There is so little cross pollination of understanding between the US and China on an average person level.
- sirolimus 2y agoThey have flagged all recent political posts. Pretending to be apolitical which is comical.
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoFlaggers' accounts should automatically be added to a top comment once a post hit's the flagged threshold and they have flagged more than X articles in the last Y days to publicize if the flagger is prolific and which types of threads they are prolific at flagging. Just tidying up? OK that's anonymous. Regularly shaping discourse? At least make it visible.
- hypothesis 2y agoThat would be too much transparency for people who also not supper happy with democracy.