Starmer’s plan to send British troops to Ukraine divides opinion

Sir Keir Starmer’s proposal to deploy British troops to Ukraine as part of a European “reassurance force” has sparked strong reactions among Independent readers.

The plan, developed with France, would see troops stationed in key locations — such as cities, ports, and nuclear sites — focusing on intelligence gathering and airspace monitoring rather than frontline combat.

However, Kremlin officials have condemned the proposal, warning that any Nato presence in Ukraine would be seen as a direct threat.

Many readers opposed Sir Keir’s idea, arguing that Britain’s military is already overstretched and underfunded. Some insisted that no deployment should take place without a major increase in defence spending, while others feared that even a limited presence could escalate tensions and risk a wider war.

Some readers supported sending troops, believing Britain must stand against Russian aggression. A few even called for the UK to take a more aggressive stance rather than waiting for US intervention.

Others suggested alternative solutions, including a UN-led peacekeeping force instead of a Nato deployment.

Here’s what you had to say:

How dare Starmer offer up our servicemen and women, without agreeing to rapidly and massively increase defence spending? A complete tone-deaf betrayal. With the right resources, our military can do what is required to defend the UK and Europe. So I vote “no” without the proper funding.

Sirstan

This is not 1939. Starmer is not Churchill. It is not Britain alone that is at threat but the whole of Europe.

As such, it is Europe that has to take a bold and strong stand, bravely and collectively.

The current United States administration is completely and wholeheartedly prepared to throw Ukraine… and, by extension, Europe…to the wolves, in order to break or at least weaken the Russia/China alliance. To what end.. .to the end that Trump can “make America Great again” by holding on to its military supremacy… no matter who it disposes of along the way.

This is not a time for Braun and muscle on Britain’s and Europe’s behalf but a time for Blitzkrieg fast thinking and action.

Ukraine and Europe are being sidelined by the world’s two military superpowers.

China will, at least to some extent, be sidelined too.

Britain, Europe, and China, put your thinking caps on FAST… and consider where a dictator-style US/Russia-run world is going to leave you.

ClintCox

No – why do we feel the need to go gallivanting off to foreign places to fight with Johnny Foreigner? We do NOT have an empire anymore and I don’t understand why our Prime Ministers continually want to come across as strong by sending British young men off to war.

WednesdayOwl

Agree 100 per cent with those who say no deployment without an immediate and large increase in UK defence spending. How can the PM promise UK forces (and remember, if he promises, say, 5000 troops, he’ll need 15000, due to the rotation of operations–training–R&R/Leave), where are these troops going to come from?

All UK armed forces are understaffed and overstretched. The UK Government (and all European Nato countries) need to take action this day – to demonstrate to Russia and the US that we take our security seriously and are willing to pay for it!

Pablo

No, absolutely not. We need to expand our DEFENCE spending because Putin is a threat. The UK and other Nato countries need to move away from American influence, as Trump sees traditional allies as their weakness. So be it.

Putting UK troops on the ground in Ukraine will not achieve anything, except bring forward a larger Europe-wide conflict before we are fully prepared for one.

Chuckiethebrave

No, absolutely not. Though perhaps we should be considering if British troops would even be allowed in Ukraine. When things finally arrive at the negotiating table, the Russians will have a strong hand, and they will be making certain demands. The UK and the EU might not be in any position to deny these demands.

5of9

Absolutely not. One false move by either party – through a misunderstood command, a rogue operative, or a technical glitch –could launch us into WW3.

qbsaul

Any peacekeeping efforts should be solely under the umbrella of the United Nations. Further, it should be the UN that presides over peace talks and not Donald Trump.

We all know that Trump hero worships Putin as a strong man, and that his involvement in the Ukraine peace process is only as a means to massage his ego and elevate himself to world statesmanship. Trump’s only interest in Ukraine is what he can get out of the deal. He has his eye on 500 billion dollars’ worth of rare earth minerals. He has no interest in Ukraine’s sovereign rights, or the protection of its people. Trump is not fit to lead any peace talk, and Zelensky is right to reject his ‘demands’.

Putin knows that he has Trump wrapped around his finger, and he knows how to manipulate Trump’s quirks. Trump is compromised from the start.

For the benefit of the Ukrainian people, who remain sovereign, the UN should preside over peace negotiations, and it should be UN peacekeepers who patrol and uphold any demilitarized zone. In that respect, and only in that, should the UK send troops to Ukraine.

KMMagnusson

I’m in favour of sending UK and other Nato and non-Nato forces to Ukraine now, to fight the Russians. The UK signed the Budapest Memorandum and should be leading the fighting with Ukraine against the Russian invader.

Additionally, Russia used chemical weapons on UK soil in Salisbury. They deserve a good kicking for that war crime, and the perpetrators, including Putin, need bringing to justice with extreme prejudice. If you let one country get away with that, they will all be doing it to us, thinking we are a soft touch.

No use waiting for the Americans – they’re always late to the party. It’s time to kick ass and take names!

Davina

The US, Russia, and Ukraine should agree on a deal that ensures no Nato troops will ever be stationed in Ukraine. In the Donbass and Crimea regions, a UN force should ensure that the region is neutral, with neither Russian nor Ukrainian forces in the area. The UK could be part of that force performing the UN mandate. The UN should support the civil administration of the regions until determination elections can be held in 10 years or so. Demilitarisation and clearance of ordnance in the Donbass region will take decades; this should be led by the UN.

Mp

Whether the deployment of British or Nato forces to Ukraine is the right choice or not is not for me to say;

However, what I will say is that it’s the first step towards a major war with Russia…

Ne22

The so-called threat from Russia is overstated and people are getting into a state of paranoia and hysteria. Calm down and carry on! There are lots of vested interests here.

As for the deployment of British troops to Ukraine, no, no, no, to coin a phrase from Mrs Thatcher. We need calm heads now and not be influenced by the paranoid Eastern European leaders. People must learn to live with their neighbour, especially when he is a large and more powerful neighbour.

Maxthehunter

For me, if we are asked to form part of a larger UN (not Nato) peacekeeping force, then absolutely. Yes.

This cannot be a Nato-led force, simply because Russia could never do a deal on those terms.

However, if no deal can be done, then at some stage we and the rest of the European countries will have to decide when we step in. We cannot have a situation in which an angry Russia – especially not with enlarged territory and resources – lurks with malicious intent on our borders. Europe has to defend itself.

Jolly Swagman

Until the negotiations between Trump and Putin are concluded and the fate of Ukraine decided, who knows what can or should be possible?

The Russian invasion and subsequent war have shown how the battlefield has changed, and the UK, along with its European allies, needs to adapt.

The changes in military capability, weapons, and tactics also mean Europe cannot rely on large-scale troop transportation from the US in the event of war.

The US has its own problems; we have ours.

DBlenkinsop

Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article here.

The conversation isn’t over. To join in, all you need to do is register your details, then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.

Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.

Source: independent.co.uk