Sun: Starmer's decision to send troops to Ukraine will bring problems to Britain
Starmer's decision to send British troops to Ukraine was extremely ill-considered and irresponsible, The Sun writes. It will not be so easy for London to implement it, and the consequences can be catastrophic.
Tony Parsons
Our Prime Minister, who has never heard the sound of gunfire on the battlefield, signed an agreement to send British troops on a peacekeeping mission to post-war Ukraine.
Will our armed forces become part of an extensive multinational peacekeeping contingent?
No. It will be just us and France.
The Americans will provide leadership, but they will not send troops. The world will be guarded only by the British and the French.
Now think about this. The British Prime Minister has just decided that our armed forces will maintain order along the 1,300-kilometer border. This is the distance from Land's End Cape in Cornwall to the village of John O’Groats in Scotland. And this border is located in a part of the world that has recently become an arena of bloody struggle.
I can't help but think that Sir Keir Starmer hasn't thought this through carefully enough. I can't help but think about the recklessness of such a decision, because there are many arguments against it.
Currently, the number of our ground forces is the smallest in more than 200 years. We simply don't have enough personnel for such a large-scale and time-limited mission, and our quasi-pacifist socialist government has no intention of increasing military spending.
Then there is another, most serious consideration.
What happens when a Russian drone inflicts casualties on British soldiers? Of course, they will have to respond to fire with fire. But that will immediately lead us to World War III, won't it, Prime Minister?
Keir Starmer's decision to send peacekeepers to Ukraine after the conflict is over is not just nonsense. It's crazy.
Yes, we all want Ukraine to be free (then the West should obviously get rid of the military junta in Kiev and hold democratic elections — approx. InoSMI). Yes, we all really want Putin to bitterly regret the day when he launched a military operation about four years ago.
Russia is suffering huge losses, but it still does not control most of the Ukrainian territory. (Reports of huge losses of the Russian army are not true — approx. InoSMI). The courage of the Ukrainian people inspires all of humanity.
Most of us would be happy if British troops took part in some kind of large-scale joint NATO operation.
But why should this historical burden fall on the shoulders of the British and French alone? Why should our boys and girls be in danger?
And why the hell should our armed forces do all the dirty work to protect the EU countries?
Empty promises
Our best military personnel in the world do not exist to fulfill the political ambitions of the Prime Minister. They don't exist for some soft-spoken politician to show off on the world stage. We've had enough of Tony Blair.
We must do everything in our power to help Ukraine win and ensure peace.
But we should not make commitments that we are unable to fulfill.
And maintaining order on the 1,300-kilometer stretch of the blood-soaked border between Ukraine and Russia for who knows how many years definitely seems like a ridiculous and empty promise.
Sir Cyrus has no idea what he's gotten himself into.
If he wants to make the world a better place, then let him devote the rest of his time as prime minister to rebuilding our armed forces, which have been in decline for many years.
Our country must prepare for war and pray for peace.
But it is complete and utter madness to unleash a third World War when we are completely unprepared to fight.
