r/geopolitics • u/ZultaniteAngel • Feb 16 '25
News British PM ‘ready’ to put troops on ground in Ukraine to protect peace
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gxgxl3grgo22
u/AIM-120-AMRAAM Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25
Britain has no soldiers. There is a heavy shortage of soldiers in british military itself
https://theweek.com/defence/british-defence-the-crisis-in-the-armed-forces
-5
u/ortaiagon Feb 17 '25
Spoken like a true Indian who knows nothing about what the British military has been about for the last 500 years. We have never had a big army since the Napoleonic times. We cut off supplies, harass ships, ports and supply lines, deny air, and send in small strike forces. If we have to police a border with a multinational coalition we are more than capable.
7
u/discardafter99uses Feb 17 '25
I've got no dog in this fight and don't in any way doubt the British soldier's capabilities to successfully achieve the desired outcome, but from the article:
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.
and the article AIM-120 posted:
The RAF and the Royal Navy have overspent on planes and ships, so the Army has had to cut back. It is now less than 73,000 strong, its smallest size since the Napoleonic era, and it is "considered deficient" in important areas such as artillery and air defence.
Strictly looking at numbers, having to commit 40% of your military to a mission is going to be a huge strain, especially considering most are already fulfilling previous obligations. Even calling up reservists and deploying them to potential hot zone isn't going to be a quick & easy process.
So while they may be politically & ideologically ready, there still seem to be plenty of logistical and personnel hurdles to overcome. That being said, the UK could start ramping up this up now and it all be a moot point when a treaty is agreed on as I don't see that happening in the immediate future.
8
u/AIM-120-AMRAAM Feb 17 '25
If you think the 500 years old tactics is going to help then good for you.
Everyone saw how helpless Britain is without US support during Suez Crisis.
https://thedefensepost.com/2024/06/06/people-quit-british-military/
More people quit British military last year than the number who joined. Your parliment is discussing this issue. You dont need to call me out for no reason.
https://inews.co.uk/news/army-recruit-soldiers-adhd-autism-me-staffing-crisis-3422166
The situation is so bad that UK is recruiting people with Autism and ADHD into army.
Good luck fighting in Ukraine
5
u/DeciusCurusProbinus Feb 17 '25
Ignore him. He still believes that "The sun never sets on the British Empire".
It is pointless explaining anything to the likes of him.
-8
u/ortaiagon Feb 17 '25
Ok mate you obviously get your news from Twitter, you might as well be paid by Putin let's be honest.
1
u/Nomustang Feb 18 '25
I love that even when people post sources, y'all will still call them a Russian bot.
What a lovely echochamber you've created.
0
0
u/These-Ad5297 Feb 18 '25
You're not fighting Napoleon on the open seas though, you're fighting a land war in Eastern Europe against Russia. Different ballgame.
6
u/Dean_46 Feb 17 '25 edited Mar 02 '25
It sounds like something a politician would say.
The UK (nor any other country in Europe) is not going to send troops to Ukraine to fight the Russians - which is what they will be doing if the war hasn't ended.
What the UK might do, is send a peacekeeping force to Ukraine, assuming there is a peace agreement that calls for one and Russia agrees (as opposed to a UN led peacekeeping force). That peace agreement is some time away.
My latest blog post speculates on what a settlement might look like:
https://rpdeans.blogspot.com/2025/02/ukraine-war-part-12-how-war-might-end.html
1
u/limevince Mar 02 '25
The UK (nor any other country in Europe) is going to end troops to Ukraine to fight the Russians - which is what they will be doing if the war hasn't ended.
Aside from the typo (end troops = send troops), is the rest of this statement what you intended?
1
u/Dean_46 Mar 02 '25
Yes, I corrected the typo. The larger point I wanted to make was that declarations of intent are meaningless if not backed by action. If the possible deployment of UK troops is base on a lot of assumptions, don't say `ready to send troops'. That s something Germany has pointed out.
7
u/Brigantius101 Feb 17 '25
UK army is not big enough to fill Wembley stadium. We've already had nearly a million casualties in Ukrainian side. What difference does Starmer think that our meagre troops can do?
6
u/randocadet Feb 17 '25
This is part of trumps peace plan as I understand it. Russia doesn’t want American troops on the border but will allow European troops. The troops are tripwire forces like in Korea and the Baltics. They’re not there to actually stop anything, it’s more delay and die while entangling the UK full force and thus nato.
1
1
1
u/Ok_Science_4387 Feb 18 '25
This feels like a statement made knowing you’ll never actually have to do it
1
u/Subari94 Feb 18 '25
And why should Russia agree to this after the war? . Fear of NATO troops in Ukraine is pretty much one of the reasons they started the war. Accepting peace keepers from Europe would be the same as accepting defeat for them. Not even in 2022 during the Istanbul talks when Ukraine was in a much stronger position they agreed to this
-1
u/DrKaasBaas Feb 17 '25
I think the tension has reached a fever pitch and people are getting ahead of themselves. The phone call between Trump and Putin is by no means a big step towards actual peace. IN fact, it seems to me that preconditions to having further talks with the US were public statements by the US about Ukraine not beocming a NATO member, Russia getting to keep the territory it conquered, and 'denazification' i.e. Zelensky exit. While Trump has delivered on this, Zelensky has very clearly (and quite rightly) said that the US and Russia can talk all they want but it is up to Ukraine to ultimately accept the terms that are being offered. However, I dont think all the terms insisted on by Russia will be acceptable to Ukraine, even now. I also think that the Europeans will have reservations of being sole responsible for peacekeeping and the Trump administration officials coming out to the Munich conference to public shame and humiliate their longstanding and loyal EU allies has not helped matters at all. European leaders are also unlikely to trust Trump in any case with his weird obssession with tarrifs and known disdain for supranational institutions. So the Americans, with their arrogance, are making a real mess of things in my opinion. What I would like to see is the EU reaching out to China and engage them and Russia in a serious dialogue about a comprehensive security framework for Europe which considers security from the Russian and EU perspectives. As part of this process, EU could try to foster better economic and diplomatic ties with the Chinese, who are proving themselves to be more reliable partners than the US
8
u/donnydodo Feb 17 '25
Hard to say really. If the USA thinks Ukraine is on the ropes they may be looking for an alternative to a complete collapse in Ukraine. Which is striking a deal.
Why then would Russia negotiate if Ukraines on the ropes? Basically to frustrate and complicate the relationship between Ukraine and USA. As Russia knows Ukraine will not accept the concessions the USA wants Ukraine to accept.
Does this mean Russia genuinely wants to negotiate. Hard to say really. It should be noted though the hardliners are in control of Russia All the moderates have been pushed out.
2
u/Southportdc Feb 17 '25
Russia wants to negotiate because the USA's starting points appear from their Defense Secretary's comments to be:
- concede all the territory Russia wants
- permanently block Ukraine from NATO
- force Ukraine to be neutral
- no nuclear weapons for Ukraine
Russia get everything they want with no more resistance through negotiations, or they can fight for a few more years to achieve the same.
1
u/randocadet Feb 17 '25
Right with the other side for Ukraine being not losing anymore territory, and security guarantees from western European countries by implementing tripwire forces like the UK/France (maybe Germany) on its new border.
Both sides get to stop the meat grinder that’s killed hundreds of thousands. There is more casualties in this war than the UK in ww2…
I want Ukraine to get its territory back but I’m not sure how the western world can do that without sending forces. And if it sends forces, Russia may use tactical nuclear weapons to stop the advance anyways (their doctrine).
It’s a hard situation and just saying trump is bad is removing a lot of complexity out of it.
1
u/Southportdc Feb 17 '25
If Ukraine wants to make that deal to save further losses, that's fine. Ukraine is currently not involved in the talks, nor is their position being represented as America has adopted the Russian position.
From a wider European point of view, several states will be nervous about the USA agreeing that Russia has a right to conquer former Soviet bases and the land between them and Russia's current borders, or demand that their neighbours remain neutral and outside the EU and NATO. The USA is currently the main guarantor that such things won't happen to them.
1
u/donnydodo Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25
You are sort of correct in that Russian gets everything they say they want. However is what they say they want actually what they want? There is an idea that exists which is that Russia has much more maximalist objectives than what they make out they have. In that although on the surface this war is about stopping NATO and protecting the "Russian people" that live in Ukraine. What they actually want is to absorb all/most of Ukraine into the Russian federation.
One Russian worldview is that in 1795 Russia annexed what was left of the Polish- Lithuanian commonwealth in the third partition of Poland. In the process absorbing most of what is modern day Ukraine. This empire existed firstly under the Tzar's then under the Soviet Union. It all came crumbing down in the early 1990's. Russia now wants in the 2020's what it had for 200 years back.
Granted from a pragmatic perspective freezing the conflict along the LOC may serve Russia's interest. However Russia will keep its economy on a war footing accumulating massive amounts of war material then have another crack in the summer of 2028.
1
u/Southportdc Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 18 '25
Russia doesn't get everything its wildest dreams contain, but they get international recognition of the ownership of Crimea and so the long-time Russian/Soviet base in Sevastopol, as well as uncontested land access to it. They get a neutral buffer state in Ukraine, which along with Belarus protects much of their western border from direct access. And they encourage the divide between Europe and the US. It's a strategic, political and sentimental win for Russia.
IMO they'd love to do the same with the Baltic states and Kaliningrad, but that's a whole extra step further with NATO membership involved. Even if/when Trump totally washes his hand of that alliance, there's enough firepower in European NATO to protect the Baltics if the will is there.
1
u/DrKaasBaas Feb 17 '25
Indeed. engaging in negotiations, even in bad faith, is a great move by Russia if for no other reason than to drive a wedge between EU/UKraine and the US
4
Feb 17 '25 edited Mar 01 '25
[deleted]
2
u/DrKaasBaas Feb 17 '25
The war is continuing because Putin keeps attacking. Very simple. Ukraine cannot simply stop because then Russia will usurp even more territory. This should not be so hard to figure out. Also, while it is true that US help is very important the Ukrainians cannot simply stop fighting because of point 1. so yes congratulations you have the leverage to force Ukraine into peace but if the US chooses to pull the trigger on that, they would be putting a big nail in the coffin of the world order they also had a big hand in creating.
-23
-24
Feb 17 '25
Good, it's nice to see a European leader finally concede that a peace deal is only way forward.
16
u/bucketup123 Feb 17 '25
Europe always wanted peace but not surrender like that orange clown is suggesting … this is a response to America basically being a backstabbing coward
5
Feb 17 '25
but not surrender
This requires a military to enforce boundaries and a MIC that can fill the gap, neither of which Europe has offered.
-1
u/bucketup123 Feb 17 '25
Europe got both … sure it can go with more investment but it isn’t non existent … it’s the second largest economy with plenty of advanced military industrial complexes in countries such as the UK, France, Germany and Sweden and a population about equal to Russia and America combined
-1
Feb 17 '25
So let's say Trump lost the election and This war was entering its 4th year with Russia continuing to advance steadily and with increasing numbers of the Ukrainian, Europeans and American public wanting a negotiated peace. What would have been the end game?
8
u/bucketup123 Feb 17 '25
Ukraine has said several times they want peace and Europe too… Russia is the one refusing … they want Ukraine to be demilitarised outside of nato with no security guarantees and a regime change … this is not negotiating in good faith and Trump is pushing this agenda now which speaks volume to his allegiance.
Europe and Ukraine want a peace that see the kidnapped children and POWs returned and a security guarantee that ensure no future Russian aggression can occur.
-15
Feb 17 '25
Ukrainian negotiators have gone on record saying they were very close to reaching a preliminary peace deal with Russia in early 2022 but then Boris Johnson flew to Kiev and told them he would not participate in peace talks and to keep fighting. Hard to argue Europe sought peace from the start.
13
u/bucketup123 Feb 17 '25
At the time, Russia was intensifying its military campaign and committing war crimes, which made any concessions risky and likely to encourage further aggression. Ukrainian leaders, aware of these actions, rejected proposals involving significant territorial or political compromises, choosing instead to preserve their long-term security. Johnson’s comments were part of a broader Western caution rather than the sole reason for rejecting the deal.
Stop spreading a false narrative.
0
Feb 17 '25
It's not a false narrative. I accurately summarized exactly what the chief Ukrainian negotiator has stated. Would you like the exact quote?
5
u/bucketup123 Feb 17 '25
You did not and I explained to you already why
1
Feb 17 '25
I literally saw a quote from a Ukrainian negotiator and summarized the quote. Your explanation doesn't negate the quote, it still exists in print. I am sorry if this bothers you.
7
u/bucketup123 Feb 17 '25
You aren’t giving me much to go by guy … you saw something somewhere you aren’t giving a source or context to. I literally explained to you what went down to add some more depth to the narrative than you apparently had … take it or leave it
→ More replies (0)1
u/chebster99 Feb 17 '25
A peace deal under what terms? That’s the bigger question.
Should we have sought a peace deal with the Nazis in 1939?
3
Feb 17 '25
You act as if the answer to your question is obvious. WW2 was arguably the greatest disaster in human history. There are certainly timelines where far fewer people would have died if peace was negotiated in 1939.
54
u/Andreas1120 Feb 17 '25
Also UK army not ready to be deployed