We’re certainly not in a position to fight Russia alone, but that’s not the plan. It wasn’t that long ago that we sent 45,000 troops to Iraq on the basis of a pack of lies, so I think we’re capable of sending a meaningful force to this
It wasn’t that long ago that we sent 45,000 troops to Iraq on the basis of a pack of lies
It was over twenty years ago. And it’s a big reason why England’s military readiness has degraded so significantly since. Both the capacity for defense and the faith in the armed forces were degraded through participation in that horrifying farce.
I think we’re capable of sending a meaningful force to this
Starmer isn’t the kind of guy who is willing to take that kind of gamble. He’ll make a bunch of empty promises then reneg. Assuming he’s even still PM in another six months.
But we sent 20,000 to an exercise last year. We clearly still have the ability to deploy meaningful numbers of troops. What else would we have sent that kind of number to between now and Iraq?
Starmer isn’t the kind of guy who is willing to take that kind of gamble.
He was the one to test Russia’s threats about allowing Western long-range missiles to be used against targets in Russia. He doesn’t seem to have a habit of making big foreign policy claims and then not backing it up
Afghanistan: we sent 10,000 troops while still involved in Iraq. Fortunately we seemed to learn the lesson here that you can’t fix an unstable country by occupying it.
Libya: we achieved our goal without sending troops, and possibly outspent the Americans in doing so
Yemen: like every other Western country involved, we sent the navy
Sudan and Somalia: see the lessons of Afghanistan. Why would we have sent troops? No other Western country sent significant numbers either
But London has not been willing to go it alone and had been waiting for the White House to change its mind, which it did on Sunday.
The reason for this is that important components in the missiles are American. As your link says, Starmer had been the one to say it first and to push for it against American reluctance. But if you think that that’s insufficient, fair enough. He has been making moves domestically, even when it’s a controversial matter. Introducing means-testing for winter fuel payments for pensioners was probably the most politically-expensive one. He’s not exactly an exciting guy, that’s for sure, but he’s clearly not afraid of pissing people off either.
We’re certainly not in a position to fight Russia alone, but that’s not the plan. It wasn’t that long ago that we sent 45,000 troops to Iraq on the basis of a pack of lies, so I think we’re capable of sending a meaningful force to this
It was over twenty years ago. And it’s a big reason why England’s military readiness has degraded so significantly since. Both the capacity for defense and the faith in the armed forces were degraded through participation in that horrifying farce.
Starmer isn’t the kind of guy who is willing to take that kind of gamble. He’ll make a bunch of empty promises then reneg. Assuming he’s even still PM in another six months.
It’s not just England
But we sent 20,000 to an exercise last year. We clearly still have the ability to deploy meaningful numbers of troops. What else would we have sent that kind of number to between now and Iraq?
He was the one to test Russia’s threats about allowing Western long-range missiles to be used against targets in Russia. He doesn’t seem to have a habit of making big foreign policy claims and then not backing it up
Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, North/South Sudan and Somalia all leap to mind.
UK defence officials for their part have been seeking US approval for Kyiv to use Storm Shadow missiles provided by Britain to hit military targets inside Russia. But London has not been willing to go it alone and had been waiting for the White House to change its mind, which it did on Sunday.
From BBC on 18 November 2024
Afghanistan: we sent 10,000 troops while still involved in Iraq. Fortunately we seemed to learn the lesson here that you can’t fix an unstable country by occupying it. Libya: we achieved our goal without sending troops, and possibly outspent the Americans in doing so Yemen: like every other Western country involved, we sent the navy Sudan and Somalia: see the lessons of Afghanistan. Why would we have sent troops? No other Western country sent significant numbers either
The reason for this is that important components in the missiles are American. As your link says, Starmer had been the one to say it first and to push for it against American reluctance. But if you think that that’s insufficient, fair enough. He has been making moves domestically, even when it’s a controversial matter. Introducing means-testing for winter fuel payments for pensioners was probably the most politically-expensive one. He’s not exactly an exciting guy, that’s for sure, but he’s clearly not afraid of pissing people off either.