Troops along the Ukrainian/Belarus border.
Not involved in fighting but frees up Ukrainian units.
On Sunday, Trump said that he expected Zelensky to be involved in the talks. He also said he would allow European nations to buy US weapons for Ukraine.
Ah yes of course.
While their aid was incredible, purchasing of weapons was always a part of it.
Can’t wait to have NATO troops on the Russian border
We already have that in multiple places
That’s why he can’t wait!
We don’t have any on a powder keg of a border like Ukraine and Russia
Yeah we do, it’s called the Suwałki Gap. Any other country can become a target now that US doesn’t give a fuck.
Thanks never knew about the gap. Probably one of the most strategic places in europe
Used to be for sure, but lost its importance when Finland joined. Also if things go the way they are going now, Russia will lose Kaliningrad in a decade or two.
That and a correctly armed Ukrainian army & airforce.
Let 2025 be the year of change.
It’ll probably happen not far away from now.
Sir Keir Starmer has said he is “ready and willing” to put UK troops on the ground in Ukraine to help guarantee its security as part of a peace deal.
The UK prime minister said securing a lasting peace in Ukraine was “essential if we are to deter Putin from further aggression in the future”.
Before attending an emergency summit with European leaders in Paris on Monday, Sir Keir said the UK was prepared to contribute to security guarantees to Ukraine by “putting our own troops on the ground if necessary”.
“I do not say that lightly,” he wrote in the Daily Telegraph. “I feel very deeply the responsibility that comes with potentially putting British servicemen and women in harm’s way.”
The prime minister added: “But any role in helping to guarantee Ukraine’s security is helping to guarantee the security of our continent, and the security of this country.”
The end of Russia’s war with Ukraine “when it comes, cannot merely become a temporary pause before Putin attacks again”, Sir Keir said.
UK troops could be deployed alongside soldiers from other European nations alongside the border between Ukrainian-held and Russian-held territory.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting told the BBC the government sees the war in Ukraine as “the frontline for Europe and the frontline for Britain”.
He said the UK is “prepared to play its part in securing the long-term future for Ukraine, for Europe and for Britain’s national security”.
Sir Keir’s announcement comes after the former head of the Army, Lord Dannatt, told the BBC the UK military was “so run down” it could not lead any future peacekeeping mission in Ukraine.
Speaking to BBC Breakfast, he said sending troops to Ukraine would come at a “considerable cost” and require an increase in funding for the military.
“Frankly, we haven’t got the numbers and we haven’t got the equipment to put a large force onto the ground for an extended period of time at the present moment,” he said.
The PM has previously only hinted that British troops could be involved in safeguarding Ukraine after a ceasefire.
He is due to visit President Donald Trump in Washington later this month and said a “US security guarantee is essential for a lasting peace, because only the US can deter Putin from attacking again”.
Sir Keir is meeting with other European leaders in response to concerns the US is moving forward with Russia on peace talks that will lock out the continent.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio plans to meet Russian officials in Saudi Arabia in the coming days, US officials say.
On Saturday the US special envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, said European leaders would be consulted only and not take part in any talks between the US and Russia.
A senior Ukrainian government source told the BBC on Sunday that Kyiv has not been invited to talks between the US and Russia.
Trump earlier this week announced he had had a lengthy conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and that negotiations to stop the “ridiculous war” in Ukraine would begin “immediately”.
Trump then “informed” Zelensky of his plan.
On Sunday, Trump said that he expected Zelensky to be involved in the talks. He also said he would allow European nations to buy US weapons for Ukraine.
Asked by the BBC about his timetable for an end to fighting, Trump said only that “we’re working to get it done” and laid the blame for the war on the previous administration’s Ukraine policies.
Writing in the Telegraph, Sir Keir said “peace cannot come at any cost” and “Ukraine must be at the table in these negotiations, because anything less would accept Putin’s position that Ukraine is not a real nation”.
He added: “We cannot have another situation like Afghanistan, where the US negotiated directly with the Taliban and cut out the Afghan government” - in reference to a deal negotiated in Trump’s first administration, which was later enacted by the Biden administration.
“I feel sure that President Trump will want to avoid this too,” said Sir Keir
The UK currently spends around 2.3% of GDP on defence and has committed to increase defence spending to a 2.5% share of the economy, without giving a timeframe for this.
Trump has called for Nato members to spend 5% of GDP on defence, while Nato secretary general Mark Rutte has suggested allies should spend more than 3%.
Lord Dannatt - who was head of the Army from 2006 to 2009 - told the BBC a rise to 2.5% would be “nowhere near enough” and would only “fill the potholes” left by current underspending.
He estimated up to 30,000 UK troops would be needed on rotation for a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine, which would likely require mobilising reservists.
Streeting told the BBC he would not speculate on the number of troops the mission would require, adding it was for the prime minister, defence secretary and foreign secretary to decide.
“But what I would say is the prime minister doesn’t talk about deploying British service men and women lightly,” he said.
The meeting in Paris called by French President Emmanuel Macron will see Sir Keir joined by leaders from Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark along with the presidents of the European Council and European Commission, and Rutte.
Sure. While kissing Trump’s ass at the same time.
Politicians more or less have to kiss the orange turds ass, which I find enjoyable in itself beside all other considerations.
Edit: hey I’m not saying he’s doing right, it was just a showethought.
They don’t. If they organize and show the limits to the US, the limits apply quite quickly.
Best example is OPEC. The US was invading Oil and Gas rich countries, when they demanded to get fair value from extracting and exporting their own resources. Once they banded together and showed the US their finger, the US was quickly put in place. It took the US decades before getting to the point of driving enough wedges to invade OPEC members again and to start ramping up its own production to increase resilience.
If the EU, Canada, Mexico and China agree to do world trade without the US, we will be able to watch it crumble away quickly.
Seriously. The world should unite to punish the US every year a fascist is in office.
Fascists and libertarians want to bring back isolationism, so let them and their useful idiots see what it’s really like.
I believed what you’re trying to say is thank you?
What can I say except !You’re welcome!..
How long before we start threatening England?
As a born-and-raised American who recently got UK citizenship, I would like to say: you filthy Yankee colonials try it and we’ll show you what we did to the bloody Bosh at the Battle of the Somme, what what!
Squid, you’re welcome here in the UK, but … er … don’t do that.
Flashbacks of the time I, a northerner, tried to do a “Landan” accent that time I visited London. In retrospect I’m lucky all I got was a “what are you doing?”
I mean the whole point was me being an ignorant American…
Ah. I see. Being stupid on purpose, in parody or otherwise, sometimes doesn’t go over all that well either.
I have made that mistake before, and will probably make it again at some point.
A large number of standup comedians and sitcoms would suggest otherwise.
It’s nice that you tried
Time to reign in that troublesome colony of yours!
The long game, get England back for 1812!
I’m pretty sure you’ve already started.
Seeds of Trumps plan starting to germinate.
Anybody else think at first “why is Richard Gere in Ukraine?”
Ways for floundering statesmen to get a ratings bump: go to war. Why does this always give a boost to incumbents?
Scholz and Macron both ready too? Le grand armée marches again! Germany with an election this year, and they are less keen on troops for obvious reasons. Macron will support, seen his ratings?
But none will go in whilst it is still hot. Meaning Putin doesn’t care, he’s likely to get Crimea and Donbas out of this, and be ready to re-arm for Moldova. Too little too late for this war from the European leaders, and it took fucking Trump to get them to not even agree anything yet!
Starmer’s grandstanding about UK troops in Ukraine is pure political pantomime. The military’s hollowed-out state gets glossed over while he cosplays global statesman. Those “security guarantees” crumble under austerity math—pledging NATO expansion while defense budgets limp below targets.
Peacekeeping forces need actual forces. Deploying skeleton crews to buffer zones just paints targets on uniforms. Meanwhile, Trump cuts Europe out of negotiations like a mob boss divvying territories. Zelensky’s getting the Kabul treatment—abandoned at the table while superpowers carve his country.
This transatlantic “bridge” Starmer peddles? More like a plankwalk. When the US-Russia deal drops, Ukraine gets demoted to temporary DMZ status—another frozen conflict where Putin licks wounds and reloads. All while European leaders scramble for relevance like extras in their own geopolitical horror flick.
I’m afraid every post you make sounds like you asked an ai to write a roasting based on the article
Every single comment they make is exactly three paragraphs. What’s up with that?
Oh, the irony of accusing someone of outsourcing thought while offering nothing but a limp dismissal. Did you even engage with the points, or is this just your default setting when confronted with analysis that doesn’t fit your pre-chewed narrative?
If you’ve got a counterargument, let’s hear it. Otherwise, your comment is just noise in the signal—a placeholder for actual discourse. Try harder next time.
Ukrainian expedition means he can break his fiscal rules. Reeves is about to do something drastic anyway, and what better way to reinvest capital than with UK arms production too? Military industrial complex is a hell of a drug
The fiscal rules are just a smokescreen anyway—Reeves breaking them is as inevitable as the next arms deal photo op. They’ll frame it as “supporting democracy” while funneling cash into the military-industrial machine, which thrives on perpetual conflict.
And reinvesting capital? That’s just another way of saying they’ve picked their winners: defense contractors and war profiteers. Ukraine’s suffering becomes a ledger entry, a justification for more spending while austerity guts everything else.
The drug analogy is spot on—except this addiction doesn’t just ruin lives; it feeds on them.
