Prime Minister Keir Starmer has declared that Britain is ready to deploy troops and aircraft to Ukraine as part of an international effort to support a peace deal aimed at ending Russia’s war.
Speaking alongside U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House, Starmer outlined the UK’s willingness to play a central role in ensuring any peace agreement is “tough and fair” and does not “reward the aggressor.”
“I am clear that the UK is ready to put boots on the ground and planes in the air to support a deal, working together with our allies, because that is the only way that peace will last,” Starmer said, emphasising the UK’s commitment to Ukraine’s security.
The UK prime minister acknowledged Trump’s “deep and personal commitment” to securing a settlement in Ukraine and praised his role in “creating a moment of opportunity” to bring an end to the war. However, he stressed that any agreement must be backed by a firm deterrent against “future Russian aggression.”
“We have to win the peace… because it can’t be peace that rewards the aggressor or that gives encouragement to regimes like Iran,” Starmer said.
His comments come as Trump prepares to meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington tomorrow to sign a landmark agreement on U.S. access to Ukraine’s mineral resources. The deal is expected to strengthen America’s supply of rare earth minerals, which Trump described as vital for U.S. industry.
“President Zelensky is coming to see me on Friday morning,” Trump said. “And we’re going to be signing really a very important agreement for both sides because it’s really going to get us into that country, working there.”
He referred to the agreement as a “backstop.”
Starmer also reinforced Britain’s growing defence commitments, highlighting the UK’s decision to provide more military aid to Ukraine this year than ever before and to significantly increase defence spending.
“We are already one of the biggest spenders in NATO, and now we are going much further, delivering Britain’s biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War,” he said, underlining the UK’s push to “rebalance the transatlantic alliance” and “make us all stronger.”
This announcement aligns with Trump’s repeated calls for European nations to take on greater responsibility for their own security, a stance he reaffirmed during the Oval Office meeting.
Ukraine should have 250k troops and an assortment of kit. Their air force should be then have a meaningful number of F16s and Mirage 2000.
They will have lots of domestic drones, rocket and tube artillery. They will have combat hardened units.
But rotating an RAF squadron to police Ukraine is going to take 50% of the RAF strength long term. A few thousand troops will need M270 as we have no spare Archer if we are still doing Estonia. Army air corps, and every branch will be overstretched. Unless France, Germany and Poland are going to build a meaningful reserve what happens when they get tested by Ru.
It will need naval support.
The problem comes when “Russian separatists ” cause agitation in the border zone. Ru forces move in and potentially UK forces are in active combat with Ru forces.
If A5 and NATO is not involved, that gets very messy.
I don’t think the public would get behind it
Russian separatists will do what they are told by Putin – stay quiet.
The UK might be leading this operation but all our NATO allies will be backing us up. Including the Americans – after Trump has finished ‘negotiating’ he will need to protect his investment.
If you were Putin you would probably be wishing the war had never started. His best option is to save a little face and get out now.
Bless. Send your people
A rational person would agree.
Putin’s drivers are more of Trumpian reality that your or my reality.
Putin is also from the KGB where having the pot bubbling a little is a good idea. So the Green/Grey Men will start up and he will lie, as he always does, shrug his shoulders and say it is down to an unhappy population.
It’s a bad idea. No good outcomes.
Start a major peer conflict with Russia for some dirt in Ukraine. Sounds cool until the body bags start rolling in. No thanks.
I don’t think we’re planning to start it…
Some of the commentary on the uptick in defence spending has highlighted that further cuts to the Armed Forces (some say substantial cuts) will happen as a result of the upcoming SDR, before the increase in spending starts in 2027. The point they make is that we will be even further depleted by 2027 and the increase won’t get us back to where we are today – at least in the short term.
….you just can’t make this stuff up!!
You can and you just did!
How many aircraft and troops is ‘General Starmer’ going to commit??? Has no-one told him how bare the cupboard really is??
Rishi, Boris, Liz, Theresa and David must surely have told him what they had done?
……Brown and Blair will have left a note for the future to inform they have a vision of what it is now.
So you believe that any UK Prime Minister Should be belittled for actually doing his job?
My challenge to those who say this is a bad idea, or even a good idea, is what is the alternative or best response. Sometimes in life all you get are bad opinions or a load of shite and death to pick from. So the questions in this pile of shit are.
1) if it’s not the UKs job to be involved in securing peace whose job is it ?
2) if it’s no one’s job or no one steps up who secures peace in Ukraine ?
3) if Ukraine losses ( and in the end it probably will) what will Russia do next ?
4) which nation will Russia attack after if it’s given the chance to gobble up Ukraine ?
4) when is it the time and place that Russia becomes our problem and how many nations will it have gobbled up and how strong will it become before it’s our problem ?
The core to this is will Russia ever stop aggressively expanding if we do nothing ?
Answers on a postcard.
1&2) You assume that peace at any price is a good thing. It isn’t. So maybe it shouldn’t be secured.
3) Peace now is a Ukraine loss. Russia will rearm and restart faster if the war stops now than if they are fought to exhaustion as the Soviets were in Afghanistan.
4) I think he’ll have another go at Georgia. Moldova will be weakened, but he won’t do more than chip away at the Baltics until Xi is ready to attack Taiwan. I might be wrong there. I know others have suggested he’ll do a Donbas in Estonia or Latvia just to test NATO’s reaction. It’s certainly possible.
5) Russia became our problem again in 2006 with the murder of Litvinenko, a naturalised British citizen, on British soil. That doesn’t mean the correct action is to shore up a peace that Ukraine, our ally, doesn’t really want.
We help Ukraine mine the border, we train their troops and we supply them with weapons. Then if Russia comes again, we help them wipe out as many Russian conscripts as we can. We don’t encourage them to sign away their sovereignty and their ability to strike back. It’s Ukraine’s decision if they do that, but we don’t have to be complicit in Pres. Trump’s shameful appeasement.
Good post 👌🏾
Peace now is not a Ukraine loss. Total false narrative. Ukraine is LOSING right now. It’s going to accelerate as the manpower runs shorter.
Peace now is the only chance Ukraine has at anything resembling a victory.
Considering the majority of Russian KIAs are 45+ I’d say the manpower shortage is not in their favour.
Scorched Earth always looks like a loss, until it doesn’t. The Donbas is Ukraine’s Karalia, except far bigger. You never win against Russia by giving up. Slava Ukraini.
Jon,
Largely concur w/ your assessment, especially re probable future RU intentions/campaigns, as defined in point 4. Would counsel a healthy level of caution/scepticism in reliance upon a US backstop for an European peacekeeping force in UKR, for the duration of this administration. Assume that any force may have to execute a fighting withdrawl from UKR, utilizing only self-generated capabilities, while under significant engagement. Essentially, a modern equivalent of the BEF withdrawal/evacuation during the Fall of France.
Trump want Europe to pay to secure him his mineral rights. I do wonder how our politicians are not more skeptical.
How come we left the EU, but we’re still defending it, still paying into it when EU countries military just polish their boots and clean their weapons.
How many helped us in the Falklands war?……………….none!
Don’t forget, our troops can only stay for 90 days and not return for another 90 days.
NATO and the EU are different things.
France.
EU members are mostly close allies of the UK whether we are part of that club or not.
France helped us by not giving any further support on Agentine’s Exocets & helping us determine what stockpile the Arg’s had. NATO is the defence treaty, not the EU.
Marky, of what strategic importance is Falklands? How much did the war costs? Those are very expensive sheep on the island, located no where.
They give us a say in what happens in the Antarctic. Worth every penny.
I think we will demand that Germany pays towards the nuclear umbrella.
Micron certainly wants that and PANG paid for.
Our nuclear weapons are of a purely strategic nature, whereas France still maintains a more all round force with air dropped munitions. Our deterrent isn’t quite as suitable as Frances for providing an “umbrella”.
I agree.
We urgently need to build some free fall bombs etc
We have the ability and the tech to do that – quite easily. Actually it wouldn’t be that expensive either as the main budgetary problem is having the facilities in the first place that are not used to anything like capacity.
The nuclear tipped air launch is something that is a bit harder as we don’t really want to put it on Storm Shadow.
Nuclear FC/ASW?
Or would a separate missile be more useful, perhaps an air launched ballistic type?
The issue is the signature confusion argument.
You don’t want the other side to think your conventional missile launch is a nuclear one?
That was the whole reason that the nuclear tipped TLAM were retired.
That assumes that the Russian can tell the difference between a missile launch and a volcano which I am dubious about.
Also there is a lot more effort in disguising a nuclear tipped missile, because of budget, than a conventional one. As well as it generally bing much faster as per the French triad.
Russia is surprisingly ahead of the game in that respect – the first use of the Oreshnik Missile was pre announced/pre warned to avoid any over reactions.
You are, in a simple minded Brexiteer fashion, confusing the EU with NATO and Europe.
Starmer acts has if the UK has huge armed forces ? Does he have any idea the size of the British Army . Now he’s willing to take care of Ukrainian air space? How many Typhoon SQNs do we have .Honestly were is the man coming from 🙄 yes by all means help Ukraine but British boots on the ground and our RAF over there sky’s .Sorry it’s a no from me .Putin won’t be able resist having another go. However nice of Trump to say British Troops know how to look after themselves ,true but does he know our forces numbers .
Then what do we have armed forces for, if its not to further our foreign and security policy?
I hear you.
The issue is, especially regards the British Army, is the never ending “double hatting”
The latest NATO plan doing the rounds was that NATO wants 2 ” Strategic Reserve Corps” one of them British. So 1 and 3 Divisions, hopefully in time repaired with the missing CS CSS.
I’d pointed this problem out the other month when the DS was grandstanding about committing a Brigade to Estonia. A reserve committed is no reserve. Our sole warfighting Division, 3 UK, already has forces deployed in Estonia to maintain the enduring BG there.
So is that plan, one which I supported given our geographical location and tradition of not being a major land power, already obsolete before it is even actioned?
Who and what would be deployed to Ukraine? The army is so small now I think it would stretch it intolerably.
If it were bigger, I’d agree with it, as a nation of the UKs stature should be at the fore.
A leading actor must always be on stage when the curtain falls.
In this case though, it is a step too far for me and HMG have only themselves to blame, namely the Conservative party from 2010 on.
Yes, I don’t see any land contribution from us being much more than a token contribution, at least in the short term. But we shall need to play to our strengths with air and naval contributions. I wonder if anyone on here knows how the Montreux Convention will apply to non-Black Sea state warships deployed there in a peace support role, especially if it kicks off. Depends how the Turks feel about it, I suppose.
That convention was discussed by a few posters here last year, and they seemed to know what they were on about.
Maybe they’ll see this and advise.
With you on that Conservative party Cut on 2010 👍
British Troops know how to look after themselves but HMGs for decades have been clueless how to look after the forces & how to maintain a credible conventional force & deterrent. It’s almost like all those Chinese & Russian kickbacks have worked a treat for them.
I’m sure that the PM will have been advised firmly by the Chiefs of Staff how many troops and aircraft we can provide.
Starmer and Macron are doing the right thing in encouraging NATO Europe to put down a marker for Ukraine’s post-war independence. If the rest of Europe sits this one out, then it will be a very small and thin monitoring force.
If the UK and French initiative is supported by troops from the other 28 NATO/E members, we could get close to the troop numbers needed.
Not that we have a lot we can send.
If Putin can deploy N Koreans, then he has no veto on NATO troopps or simply any willing European troops fighting alongside UKR. I’d love to see aircover for UKR. The only way Putin would back down is when faced with might.
You do know that Russia has used/deployed Troops from outside Russia since this War began ?. Its nothing new.
The US embrace of Putin is very concerning and confusing. US, Israel and Russia voted against the UN resolution to condemn Russia. At least China abstain.? So, a new world order? Does it not appear that US has switched over to the other side? My low pay scale don’t allow me to make these decisions. Over to you.
Getting locked into another Cold War with Russia isn’t in the US or even western Europe’s interest.
The US is trying to free itself from Europe infighting to pivot to Asia.
But apparently it is in Russia’s interest or we wouldn’t actually be here would we?
Trump wants money back, access to the mineral wealth whilst Europe pays the costs of securing the country and mines for extraction, win win for America.
In practice there are no troops or aircraft to send mr Starmer.
Plot twist.
After all the media hype, most of europe just tell the leaders to fight their own war. 😮
Result.
War is over in minutes, life carries on, no one gets hurt, no recovery is needed, the corrupt politicians of Europe get traded for other corrupt politicians, Just like in any and every election.
But wait… theres more!
All the infrastructure both physical and economic is untouched and intact. Business as usual.
REMEMBER FOLKS
All wars end when politicans are forced to fight it themselves.
I kind of wonder if we just let the enemy have the ones who started war, we might definetly speedhack the land back to peace time 💪
SIGNED
person who believes you don’t have the right to start a war, force others to fight for your twisted cause whilst you run in the opposite direction and hide safely inside a personal bunker and get rich from a tragedies and extreme suffering.
Poetry that.