'We stand with Ukraine for as long as it may take' – Keir Starmer tells Zelensky

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn5220x56pqt

by sirolimus • 1 year ago

95 97 1 year ago

duxup3• 1 year ago

At 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.

sirolimus7• 1 year ago

Looks 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.

hnthrowaway03152• 1 year ago

I 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.

preisschild3• 1 year 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.

forgot-today• 1 year ago

WDYM? If alternative is war even closer to home, then doubling or tripling budget is nothing.

sirolimus7• 1 year ago

Peace 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?

Frederation2• 1 year ago

Whatever it takes. Thats the sentiment, like it or not..

preisschild3• 1 year ago

If 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

hnthrowaway03152• 1 year ago

Is it the famous "We will give them every support, short of help" line? /s

quote: from "Yes Prime Minister"

mjburgess7• 1 year ago

Of course, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSD1d-6P6qI

room2713• 1 year ago

No, 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.

lazyeye6• 1 year ago

So 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?

cduzz4• 1 year ago

Well, 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?

lazyeye6• 1 year ago

We 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.

bitshiftfaced• 1 year ago

If Ukraine looks like winning at any point, Putin may escalate to tactical nuclear and we can't risk that.

I don't see why they would do that, seeing how they want to annex this land. Kyiv holds significance cultural importance to Russia.

Ukraine made a foothold in Kursk, but it's looking like Russia will be able to take it back over time.

What happens then?

Doesn't it look likely that at the very least Russia will annex parts of Ukraine?

swat535• 1 year ago

Since you’re advocating for increased war funding, I assume you’re not considering diplomatic peace talks as a solution. With that in mind, what does ‘ending the war’ look like to you?

As a follow up, how much do you estimate it would cost? The UK has just announced another £2.26 billion pledge, and we have yet to hear from the EU.

brink4• 1 year ago

Trump 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.

4ndrewl3• 1 year ago

The 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.

bigyabai2• 1 year ago

America 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.

brink4• 1 year ago

What 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.

cduzz4• 1 year ago

I'm not sure if "unilateral disarmament" is "peace".

Russia's got a long history of mulching their subjects, I'm pretty sure "peace" is the peace of the grave, for many souls currently living in Ukraine.

So they're not really heavily incentivized toward peace under the "please dig your own grave" terms on offer.

lawn• 1 year ago

To get a sense for how Russian occupation would be like, we can just look at the areas they've already occupied.

Mass graves, torture chambers, and the lowest freedom in the whole world.

sirolimus7• 1 year ago

Did you listen to what Trump said yesterday?

1. There is no security guarantees. 2. There is no future help if Russia breaks the cease-fire and tries taking Ukraine again. 3. The cease-fire will simply give Russia time to regroup and launch another offensive later. 4. Trump thinks Zelensky is a dictator 5. Zelensky has already offered to step down as president if Trump gave security guarantees.

nullbyte808• 1 year ago

Zelensky is too good to be a politician. He should never step down, especially for Trump.

chabes2• 1 year ago

What a backwards thing to say.

Surrender to an oppressor is never peace.

legitster3• 1 year ago

What peace deal? So far nothing has actually been proposed other than marketing spin on Ukraine surrendering.

cheema333• 1 year ago

I've had enough of the wars and proxy wars...

You have any bright ideas on how to achieve peace that does not involve asking Ukraine to surrender to an invading Russian military and give up the land Russia stole?

Also, would you sing the same tune if somebody invades your country?

orochimaaru2• 1 year ago

That’s an Ukraine problem. The US should never have made overtures for Ukraine joining nato.

There is no “right” for any country to join nato. And Ukraine is not a nato ally.

The way it is currently, this is a forever war on low boil that will continue for ever. All the current situation accomplishes is sale of arms to Ukraine.

The Europeans manufacture good armaments as well. They are more than accomplished to provide whatever aid Ukraine needs.

Frederation2• 1 year ago

Peace isnt on the table. Esp. not from this Orange Turd.

duxup3• 1 year ago

Freedom isn’t free.

We support other free nations…. so that we don’t have to fight directly (and alone).

layer82• 1 year ago

Putin will not stop until he has control over all of Ukraine, by installing a puppet regime similar to Belarus. And then in Moldava as well, if not further. That’s what the Ukraine is fighting to prevent. There is no peace if the Ukrainians don’t retain their freedom. And someone has to guarantee that freedom, against Russia.

kyriakos• 1 year ago

Someone comes into your house, takes over half the rooms and tells you that they are theirs, for the sake of being a nice person you just let it pass and also tell them they should also decide what you'll be having for dinner from now on.

This is the peace that is being aksed for Ukraine to accept.

penguin_booze• 1 year ago

So glad I don't live in the UK right now.

As are we.

siliconc0w• 1 year ago

If 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• 1 year ago

PRESIDENT (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.

mikewarot2• 1 year ago

I'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.

layer82• 1 year ago

How would that possibly work without Russia turning all Ukraine cities into nuclear wasteland in retaliation?

mikewarot2• 1 year ago

Mutual 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.

mjburgess7• 1 year ago

Since 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.

cheema333• 1 year 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.

mjburgess7• 1 year ago

There's a Russian army on that land, so its not entirely clear who would be surrendering it.

I am not against Europe sending in an army if it wishes. I am not against your pro-war position which seeks, via military means, to retake land in Russia's control. I am more pointing out that you're not actually willing to do anything about it. You're not willing to take any risk to your own security.

You can have whatever position you want, but a political slogan isnt a policy -- its not an argument, or a position. It's just some theatrical ploy to make yourself feel better: what is the policy you have (or anyone) to retake the land under russian control? How do you intend to end the war? Ask the school teacher to put Russia in detention?

Trump is withdrawing from Ukraine, there is nothing anyone can do about that. If Europe wishes Ukraine to retain all of its land, and far fewer of its lives, it will have to risk its own security. It will not, nor will you: this is the source of the hatred for trump, it requires people of your mind to act -- and that was never on the table

I'd imagine the US actions might well violate Budapest, but that was extremely watered down at the time from "gaurentees" to "assurances" so its a very weak position to start with. But in any case the world which now exists has three great powers: US, China, Russia. All three are now "pivoting to each other", and away from non-rivaling activity.

If europe doesnt like this, or you don't -- I have no issue with that: go on, do something.

The US is not pivoting back to the EU now, under no administration. Just as Biden retained Trump's pivot against China, the next admin (dem or rep) will retain his piovt from the EU -- since both have been the desire of every president over the last 20+ years.

kolanos• 1 year ago

US signed Budapest memorandum. We promised to help defend Ukraine, if it gave up its nukes. Now we are trying to shake them down like a mafia. And also asking them to give in to Putin's demands, without asking Putin to give up anything.

I keep seeing this on HN and it is just plain wrong. Someone should actually bother to read this thing. [0]

Under the agreement the Russian Federation provided security assurances to Ukraine in the form of promising neither to attack nor to threaten to attack them. The other signatories (the United States, United Kingdom and France) pledged non-military support to Ukraine in exchange for its adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The memorandum bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine had already held from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, the United Nations Charter and the Non-Proliferation Treaty but the Ukrainian government found it valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.
The Budapest Memorandum was negotiated at political level, but it is not entirely clear whether the instrument is devoid entirely of legal provisions. It refers to assurances, but unlike guarantees, it does not impose a legal obligation of military assistance on its parties. According to Stephen MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force anyone to act in Ukraine." In the US, neither the George H. W. Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was adopted in more limited terms. The memorandum has a requirement of consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the memorandum. Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early 2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments. Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".
China and France gave security assurances for Ukraine in separate documents. China's governmental statement of 4 December 1994 did not call for mandatory consultations if questions arose but only for "fair consultations". France's declaration of 5 December 1994 did not mention consultations.

Interesting that China actually signed similar security assurances with Ukraine and is now actively providing military support to Russia without anyone on HN criticizing them.. [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum [1]: https://apnews.com/article/united-states-china-russia-ukrain...

hdjjhhvvhga4• 1 year ago

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.

It would be nice if it was true. Someone else might argue that Putin just wants to extend its empire westwards as much as he is allowed to.

legitster3• 1 year ago

I 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.

duxup3• 1 year ago

Is 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”.

sirolimus7• 1 year ago

So what are you proposing then? That Russia just takes Ukraine?

legitster3• 1 year ago

The US to continue funding NATO and Ukraine.

mjburgess7• 1 year ago

The worst thing for European security is for europe to become a military rival to Russia (, the US, China). This is a likely to be an increasinly popular desire for the publics of europe now that the US is withdrawing, but it's a dangerous trap -- the upside is that you retain a seat at the table, the downside is you will be grinding down your population in wars and military spending.

The german model was the european model: spend almost nothing on defense, let the US provide the nukes, sit back and get rich.

One reason this model may fail is the UK and France -- both are expeditionary forces (the UK where-ever the US is, and france in africa) trying to play at being a great power. This only ever worked because the US was prepared to bail them out whenever anything bad happened (cf. Libya). Without the US, both nations may try to drive towards EU military unification and hence genuine great power status.

Good luck balancing the Chinese, Russia and US defense budgets. Europe's spending will be crippled, just as the US's is -- without global currency status to prop it up.

hdjjhhvvhga4• 1 year ago

One reason this model may fail is the UK and France

Another reason is a bi-polar American president that can withdraw from NATO tomorrow effectively leaving Europe on its own. Europe has no other choice, they need to spend more on defense if they want to keep the war at bay.

AnimalMuppet• 1 year ago

No, the worst thing for European security would be to not have enough military strength to stop Putin if he decides he wants Poland (as prominent Russians have said they should take, after Ukraine). And then East Germany, and Chechia, and Slovakia, and Hungary. And then who knows if he would decide he is done?

Not being able to defend yourself is strictly worse for security than being able to defend yourself. I don't know how you can think otherwise.

soramimo• 1 year ago

The main need for this comes from the rise of China. Specifically, its rise in economic power and military capabilities make is so that 1) the US is no longer able to deter both Russia and China combined, but needs to prioritize China (its main geopolitical rival) and 2) Russia can openly engage in armed conflict without the fear of Western sanctions, as China will keep Russia's economy afloat (mainly via purchase of energy).

With Trump back in the White House there is an additional motivation for EU countries to up their military spending; at best the US is now viewed as a less reliable ally (that may or may not help in the face of conflict), at worst the US will align itself with autocratic regimes to divide up the world in their respective spheres of influence and actively undermine the EU.

So if you accept the premise that democracy (and the liberal, rule-based world order) is worthwhile defending, increased military spending of EU countries is in fact a "good thing" (as in, better than the alternative of submitting to imperialistic authoritarian neighbors).

NalNezumi2• 1 year ago

I agree that increased military spending in Europe is a good thing.. for Europeans but net negative for the world.

Also it's a pretty daft take to think that this sudden armament of Europe is going to help the "contain China" cause. Why would anyone in East/South East Asia now trust USA when they see economics as zero-sum game with military intimidation towards allies as a valid strategy for getting their way. China is doing the latter without the former, and most Asian nations has more to lose economically siding with US to begin with.

Pivot to China have been the long running goal since Obama but why it took long time is because of dynamics like this. Just to on a whim in less than 2 month destroying all that. I can't imagine how this can be spun as a win, even with outlined goals of yours.

Yeah good luck containing China when all their neighbors are now not sure about American commitment anymore. If I'm a Asian politician I'd probably just start nuke development and declare neutrality and ride this one out.

Global free trade, which have benefitted all of Asia (including China) is not something US is supporting anymore anyway

thunkshift12• 1 year ago

Whay does “stand” mean here? Just make statements in public? uk isn’t doing much tbh

TomK322• 1 year ago

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-support-to-ukr...

    £7.8 billion in military support
    £5 billion in non-military support

thunkshift12• 1 year ago

Which is LOT less than us or german contribution.

'We stand with Ukraine for as long as it may take' – Keir Starmer tells Zelensky

Related Stories