this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2025
1 points (52.9% liked)

UK Politics

3309 readers
269 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
tom@feddit.uk
GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
flamingos@feddit.uk
frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
1
Fears raised over Starmer's plan for troops in Ukraine (morningstaronline.co.uk)
submitted 4 days ago by RobotToaster@mander.xyz to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Thank fuck some leaders aren't going down the "appease the dictator" route. The west has tried for decades to appease Russia, but it doesn't work. Dictators only see our appeasement efforts as weakness.

We tried for so long to welcome them with open arms. We traded with them, we built gas pipelines, we gradually disarmed over the 90s/2000s/2010s. We thought that by opening up to them that our "western values" – vague as that phrase may be – would spread... but we got nowhere. Only taken advantage of. There's no better political figure that embodies this than Merkel, but she was far from being alone in that naïve thinking.

The only way for lasting peace is for a pan-Europan defence committment. Peacekeepers stationed there is a good part of that.

Trump has made clear the US can't always be relied upon, so working closely with EU nations is a good move.

[–] slakemoth@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 4 days ago

Thank god they dont appease MBS or Netanyahu!

[–] hellothere@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Morning Star, STW, and CND all showing their arses here. Fucking appeasement clowns.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm sure appeasement will work this time!

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 0 points 4 days ago

Bro... Its just Ukraine man, who cares, just give them Estonia... Just a part of Poland bro... Why not.

[–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk 5 points 4 days ago

pushing Nato membership for Ukraine has been a key driver of this conflict and has increased the threat of nuclear war

Nice to see the star reposting .ml/lemmygrad rhetoric. I'm amazed the interviewees didn't claim that the invasion was inevitable and actually fine because yhere are neo Nazis in Ukraine.

[–] frazorth@feddit.uk 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

pushing Nato membership for Ukraine has been a key driver of this conflict and has increased the threat of nuclear war.

What absolute fucking nonsense is this?

Ukraine were not going to get NATO membership, because that was what was agreed. Literally the reason it's become a viable option is due to Russia invading Ukraine. THAT is the driver. It's been shown that Russia will invade Ukraine regardless of NATO membership, because they've already done it.

Russia can fuck off along with all the American Nazi's.

[–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's because that's the narrative the Moscow puts out. And tankies eat it up, and regurgitate it verbatim without a second thought.

[–] frazorth@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago

Completely agree.

I think it's important to make sure we point out the absolute bullshit narrative whenever this stuff is posted.

[–] Mrkawfee@feddit.uk 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

I don't feel safe in this world no more. I don't want to die in a nuclear war.

[–] Mrkawfee@feddit.uk 2 points 4 days ago

That's a great one, although I was quoting from this Kinks song:

https://youtu.be/BBVAS8qNZZI

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca -3 points 3 days ago

Russia is not going to stop at Ukraine.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 1 points 4 days ago

Well US is negotiating on behalf of Russia, it would be nice if Europe stepped on behalf of Ukraine like

This whole Ukraine situation really makes the "free world" looks like limp dick cucks that scared of their own shadows.

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago

Capitulation to aggressors does not work.

Of course this is posted by someone saying to not vote during the 2024 presidential election.

[–] slakemoth@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 4 days ago (4 children)

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.

[–] frazorth@feddit.uk 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Only complete domination of Ukraine would be acceptable to Russia, so what's the point of anything?

[–] slakemoth@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Any evidence for this?

[–] frazorth@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Apart from:

Exhibit A. Russia invades Ukraine.

Fucking Tankies.

[–] slakemoth@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 day ago

The USA invaded iraq - they didn't have any intention of making it sovereign territory. That's not enough evidence of intent.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 3 points 4 days ago

That's exactly why he said it, same reason Boris went over and told him not to negotiate peace.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

To create pressure for a deal to be signed.

[–] slakemoth@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] frazorth@feddit.uk 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] slakemoth@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 2 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] withabeard@feddit.uk 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] slakemoth@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 days ago (3 children)

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.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] slakemoth@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 2 points 3 days ago

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.

[–] withabeard@feddit.uk 2 points 3 days ago

We were making Russia a geopolitical ally. Russia decided to invade Ukraine. Appeasement met with backstabbing.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

How do you defeat a nuclear armed adversary without causing the end of the world?

[–] withabeard@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago

You don't do it by appeasing then and allowing them to invade neighbors.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago

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.