The war in Ukraine...

[BrianV]

I think I have responded to this question before, in any case I'll set down my position here...

I have seen war first hand, with direct involvement and as a passing - escaping - civilian. It is horrible, the destruction, the butchery, the filth, the waste, all of these are horrible, revolting, terrifying and repellent. So no, I do not want British troops to fight in Ukraine, that is literally the last thing I want to happen.

The thought of our own people dying, and even some people I know or know of being killed or mutilated is dreadful and, quite naturally, it revolts me even more than it happening to people a thousand miles away, regardless of how much I support their cause and admire them.

And yet... rather than see Putin victorious there with all that would mean for the future security of us and many others, I would as a last resort be prepared to see British troops defending Ukraine, and I would go too - for what that would be worth, even with me now being an over-fifty very former junior commander. And the reason I'd see this happen and go myself is exactly the same as the reason the older men are fighting in Ukraine - so my children would not / hopefully never have to.

But far better than that, I'd see us - meaning the UK and the Western Alliance as a whole - properly arm and supply Ukraine - but even us alone if there was no other choice; though I have no doubt that there would be other countries like-minded. If we need to adopt a war-economy, so be it, the matter really is that important.

I think it self-evident that we need to boost our domestic arms industry, this is a very good opportunity to do it. Many object to it, but I have no problem with increasing tax or diverting spending to support Ukraine.

However, the obvious and far, far better alternative to that is to use the billions of Russian state funds in Western keeping. The UK alone has something like £25bns, as does the US, Belgium has about $170bns of Russian cash in its care... yes you read that correctly, $170bns. (and let's not forget the interest that has accrued )

Admittedly not my field of practice, but the principle is simple: a state can sue a state, and can receive damages and costs. The wheels have started to turn on this, but they are going very slowly.

Anyway, that's my position as clearly as I can state it.

Can't see them confiscating Russian state funds unless a country is very stupid, possibly the UK would qualify for that bracket, a, it would be illegal.
b. China would immediately remove any movable assets out of any country that did it causing serious damage to that countries currency.
Seizing any profit on those assets is a possibility but again most likely to be challenged in court & any country doing it might end up losing.

 

[essex man]

I'm almost certain given military security that UK special forces are there right now.
Along with France and other countries.
I support them being there.
I will support any future open deployment too.
Again how much clearer can I be?
(I'm not the government and they haven't asked me for permission )

You are still not answering, you are expert at this.
Do you support British troops going there next week in large numbers?
Do you want the government to do this?

 

[BrianV]

Yea right, don't hold your breath, in other words never going to happen.

Hahn: Potential 20% EU budget hike from Ukraine’s accession only 0.2% of economic output, yet quick membership unlikely​

EU Budget Commissioner Johannes Hahn says Ukraine’s potential EU accession could increase the EU budget by up to 20%, which is only 0.2% of European economic output, noting Ukraine’s significant economic potential.
BYYURI ZORIA
25/04/2024
3 MINUTE READ
hahn-potential-20-eu-budget-hike-from-ukraines-accession-only-0-2-of-economic-output-yet-quick-membership-unlikely

 

[its yourself]

You are still not answering, you are expert at this.
Do you support British troops going there next week in large numbers?
Do you want the government to do this?

If the government announced it and it was alongside France for instance I'd support it. Would you?

I want to avoid things getting worse.
It may be the only option available.

Given the size of UK forces available I think large numbers are extremely unlikely. Depends on your view of large I suppose?

 

[will l]

Brian it's good to have a different opinion but you completely ignore the facts, if that statement was true, why where there tanks on the road to Kyiv? Lost ?

Facts and him dont mix he avoids them,

Boy some people are dumb, Putin put troops & equipment all along the Ukrainian border to pressure Ukraine to back down, he put conscripts & the least experienced furtherest from the East & past Kyiv as he never expected Ukraine to stand firm & not buckle & to accept terms, this they would have done had not the US & UK talked them into standing firm.
When the bluff didn't work he invaded & had to send in all troops in the hope of taking control of Ukraine, he had no alternative to sending in the conscripts as well to the west who hadn't a clue what they were doing & were ill prepared with either fuel or food for an actual invasion, this resulted in the 40 mile traffic snarl up & duck shoot destroying so much equipment, by then there was no going back.

Bizzare, any facts to back these assertions,

 

[essex man]

If the government announced it and it was alongside France for instance I'd support it. Would you?

I want to avoid things getting worse.
It may be the only option available.

Given the size of UK forces available I think large numbers are extremely unlikely. Depends on your view of large I suppose?

So that's a no then.

 

[Danllan]

Can't see them confiscating Russian state funds unless a country is very stupid, possibly the UK would qualify for that bracket, a, it would be illegal.
b. China would immediately remove any movable assets out of any country that did it causing serious damage to that countries currency.
Seizing any profit on those assets is a possibility but again most likely to be challenged in court & any country doing it might end up losing.

No you idiot, a Court Order is the precise opposite of 'illegal', it is the law being enforced.

There is already precedent in the the Common Law jurisdictions for other states to sue one another for funds held within them. This is not HMG 'confiscating' or taking anything, it is the Sovereign State of the Republic of Ukraine suing Russia.

If such an action is successful a Judge can award any amount he sees fit; sometimes the Defendant state refuses to pay the Claimant directly and in such instances, where the Defendant state has assets within the jurisdiction, the Judge can order seizure and transfer of all or part of those assets to the Claimant state.

We have separation of powers in this country, as does the US, and Belgium for that matter, unlike in your beloved Russia. Any government here - and this is entirely non party political - will abode by a Court's decision and will not attempt interference in any way.

This would be a matter between Ukraine and Russia decided in a Court, these case happen all the time, and they are often brought here because we have true Judicial independence.

 

[Danllan]

So that's a no then.

What do you want to happen in this regard, and why?

 

[Treg]

Boy some people are dumb, Putin put troops & equipment all along the Ukrainian border to pressure Ukraine to back down, he put conscripts & the least experienced furtherest from the East & past Kyiv as he never expected Ukraine to stand firm & not buckle & to accept terms, this they would have done had not the US & UK talked them into standing firm.
When the bluff didn't work he invaded & had to send in all troops in the hope of taking control of Ukraine, he had no alternative to sending in the conscripts as well to the west who hadn't a clue what they were doing & were ill prepared with either fuel or food for an actual invasion, this resulted in the 40 mile traffic snarl up & duck shoot destroying so much equipment, by then there was no going back.

You are kidding?
Why comment if you haven't a clue what's been going on.
You are very naive.
Putin sent his best troops to Kyiv, got more than half his air borne troops lost in the first few days and the majority of his special forces were lost trying to take air fields.
The Russian army hasn't recovered from those loses and now have to use numbers rather than quality.

 

[essex man]

What do you want to happen in this regard, and why?

Real help to win the war, i.e. push russia out of Ukraine 2012 borders is not popular, hence it is not being given.
It's not popular either to abandon them, so the current policy results in grinding stalemate and death.
I favour encouraging the Ukrainians to settle for what they have, on the gtounds that we are not up for giving them the support they need.

 

[Fendt65]

But not troops going in to fight?

No at the moment I wouldn’t but wouldn’t rule it out in the future

but I’m sure we could be doing more with our long distance drones if we are not already perhaps we don’t have to put boots on the ground to make a difference

 

[Montexy]

Just a thought, let's leave sending troops to the EU after all its the EU who will have to live side by side with whoever wins out. Let's just stick to sending aid and accepting refugees for the duration. The lives of British soldiers are far to precious to waste on foreign wars again no matter how noble the cause.

 

[BrianV]

You are kidding?
Why comment if you haven't a clue what's been going on.
You are very naive.
Putin sent his best troops to Kyiv, got more than half his air borne troops lost in the first few days and the majority of his special forces were lost trying to take air fields.
The Russian army hasn't recovered from those loses and now have to use numbers rather than quality.

Try finding out before putting dumb comments on here, the only best troops were the ones sent ahead to try & take Kyiv the rest that were the vast majority in the West were largely conscript's without a clue & were shot to pieces.

 

[BrianV]

No you idiot, a Court Order is the precise opposite of 'illegal', it is the law being enforced.

There is already precedent in the the Common Law jurisdictions for other states to sue one another for funds held within them. This is not HMG 'confiscating' or taking anything, it is the Sovereign State of the Republic of Ukraine suing Russia.

If such an action is successful a Judge can award any amount he sees fit; sometimes the Defendant state refuses to pay the Claimant directly and in such instances, where the Defendant state has assets within the jurisdiction, the Judge can order seizure and transfer of all or part of those assets to the Claimant state.

We have separation of powers in this country, as does the US, and Belgium for that matter, unlike in your beloved Russia. Any government here - and this is entirely non party political - will abode by a Court's decision and will not attempt interference in any way.

This would be a matter between Ukraine and Russia decided in a Court, these case happen all the time, and they are often brought here because we have true Judicial independence.

I’d say your view of law is about as accurate as your dalliance with farming, as my dad used to say
“ all bloody mouth & trousers “

The legal case for seizing Russia’s assets

G7 allies are debating whether to spend Moscow’s frozen funds to support Ukraine

www.ft.com

 

[neilo]

Just a thought, let's leave sending troops to the EU after all its the EU who will have to live side by side with whoever wins out. Let's just stick to sending aid and accepting refugees for the duration. The lives of British soldiers are far to precious to waste on foreign wars again no matter how noble the cause.

What an incredibly selfish attitude. Are British soldiers' lives more precious than those of French soldiers? Or German, Belgian, etc?

If western nations see the need to send troops in, then the UK should very much be involved, not leaving it to someone else to step up to the plate.
I suspect such action would be the start of WW3 though.

 

[will l]

Try finding out before putting dumb comments on here, the only best troops were the ones sent ahead to try & take Kyiv the rest that were the vast majority in the West were largely conscript's without a clue & were shot to pieces.

Battle of Antonov Airport - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Kadyrovites in Ukraine: war Crimes and the whereabouts of the Chechen occupiers

Journalists of Slidstvo.Info have investigated the actions of the Kadyrovites during the war in Ukraine and have established the locations and movements of the Russian occupiers

www.slidstvo.info

 

[Danllan]

I’d say your view off law is about as accurate as your dalliance with farming, as my dad used to say
“ all bloody mouth & trousers “

The legal case for seizing Russia’s assets

G7 allies are debating whether to spend Moscow’s frozen funds to support Ukraine

www.ft.com

I repeat... this is not state seizure it is via a Court order, this is an established thing.

But even if it were not, which it is, please advise of any case that has removed the Courts' prerogative to set precedence.

Below is a link to another, more recent FT article...

Seizing Russian reserves is the right thing to do

Blatant violations of international laws require a response and reparations would be in line with historical precedent

www.ft.com

 

[Robbt]

Try finding out before putting dumb comments on here, the only best troops were the ones sent ahead to try & take Kyiv the rest that were the vast majority in the West were largely conscript's without a clue & were shot to pieces.

The mighty Russian army was sent to topple the government of Ukraine and replace it with a puppet government.This is obvious to everyone but you Brian.Turns out they weren’t so mighty and are now settling for what they can get.Lower goals are easier to achieve

 

[Henarar]

What an incredibly selfish attitude. Are British soldiers' lives more precious than those of French soldiers? Or German, Belgian, etc?

Would you be more upset to hear of British soldiers dying in Ukraine than foreign soldiers ?

 

[Danllan]

What an incredibly selfish attitude. Are British soldiers' lives more precious than those of French soldiers? Or German, Belgian, etc?

If western nations see the need to send troops in, then the UK should very much be involved, not leaving it to someone else to step up to the plate.
I suspect such action would be the start of WW3 though.

They are to me, of course they are, what a f^cking stupid question to ask...

That doesn't mean our troops shouldn't be deployed independently or in coalition with others, but the day anyone in office ever places our men's lives anywhere other than as being of the foremost importance, is the day the bast.ard should be binned.