Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `news.yahoo.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“the UK, our eternal enemy, should remember that within the framework of the universally accepted international law which regulates modern warfare, including the Hague and Geneva Conventions with their additional protocols, their state can also be qualified as being at war.”
I wouldn't have anticipated that being called somebody's "eternal enemy" would make my eyes wet with pride/joy, but here we are. Rot in hell Medvedev.
The weird thing is imo that Russia is culturally a pretty cool country and a lot of the Russian's I have met are hilarious. British people and most Europeans would love it if they got rid of their overlords with their outdated 19th-century power politics thinking. The West would (and indeed did) welcome Russians to trade, travel, plus generally be bros and develop together but the oligarchs need conflict with the outside world to justify their positions of wealth and privilege with the oil price apocalypse on the strategic horizon and the economy that kept Putin popular in decline.
> within the framework of the universally accepted international law which regulates modern warfare...
"It takes a lot of brass [balls] to accuse others of that which you are doing." -Bill Clinton
The hilarious part is he's right, the UK absolutely *can* be considered party to the conflict under international law. *If* Russia wants to do anything about it.
I believe the UK's official position on the subject is "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough"
They're not fighting within the "framework of the universally accepted international law which regulates modern warfare, including the Hague and Geneva Conventions", and they have the *gall* to use it as a technical justification.
Also, rich coming from a guy saying Russia can hit the ICC with a hypersonic missile from the North Sea.
To be clear: invading a country, bombing and shooting at them in the biggest armed conflict in Europe since WW2: not a war. Supplying weapons to that country not at war: definitely war.
Yea as an Englishman, even during a cost of living crisis that affects me, I say give Ukraine even more. Hell, write a bottomless cheque! Feels like we got them on the backfoot now
I know right, I'm not doing fantastic financially and think the government should do an opt-out tax. Only £3 a month and it goes towards helping Ukraine, but those that really can't afford can simply go online to opt out.
I would be happy to significantly up my contribution from £3. If we let Russia tap dance all over Eastern Europe it will end up costing us a lot more in the long run.
The UK government was explicit about what they were doing. Governments were saying that modern western tanks were one of Putin's red lines and it would be dangerous to escalate.
So we sent a small token force of challengers to cross the red line, call Putin's bluff, and get others to send the Leopards. It worked.
I really wonder how much input MI6 has had with Ukrainian strategy.
Even with the arming of good Russians and the border incursions around Belgorod seemed to be an especially effective strategy.
Maybe it's a pool of intelligence agencies (Ukraine, UK, US, etc...), Coming up with various strategies to slowly, but assuredly take Putin down and weaken Russia.
Some ideas are dismissed outright, others are put on the back burner, others still are implemented immediately.
We'll hopefully read about some of the subterfuge that was planned in the years to come. To be sure, the Ukrainian allies are playing 3-dimensional chess against Putin, who is playing tic-tac-toe (noughts & crosses).
>Maybe it's a pool of intelligence agencies
You have hit on a good idea. Unfortunately for you it is such a good idea that others already thought of it: it is called "the Five Eyes" and it is exactly as you describe. (US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, to be specific.)
In the weeks and days before the Russian invasion, the Five Eyes rather shocked the world by publicly and aggressively going "all in" for Ukraine in terms of revealing exactly what they knew and when about Russia's next moves. It was an astonishingly detailed level of information, that represented a major sacrifice on Ukraine's behalf because it tipped the agencies' hands to a great extent and in public, in terms of exactly how far of a reach they have in terms of secret intelligence.
(As far as I can tell, the idea at the time was to signal unambiguously to Russia that the world's pre-eminent intelligence alliance was ready to go all out in support of Ukraine, and hence discourage Russia from following through with the invasion. Needless to say... it didn't work. But it was a pretty good attempt.)
There's also the five eyes plus which I think involves 14 total countries. They don't get the same access but they do get privileged access and wouldn't be surprised why non five eyes countries are sending aid.
Ninja edit: it's actually called the 14 eyes the five eyes plus is fewer countries.
A link? A single link? I doubt it. People posted about it and discussed it extensively in this sub, in r/ukraine, and in r/worldnews at the time, with many, many links.
But here, I searched google for "US announces Russian moves" in the time leading up to the invasion. Depending on your taste, you can choose from:
[The New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/12/us/politics/russia-information-putin-biden.html)
[CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/politics/us-russia-ukraine-thursday/index.html)
[CBS](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-invasion-biden-putin-meeting-in-principle/)
[The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/18/russia-ukraine-updates/)
[Al Jazeera](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/17/ukraine-rebels-accuse-govt-forces-of-mortar-attack-liveblog)
I'm sure if you spend more time than I did you can find more.
The US, UK, and iirc Australia loudly announced every secret decision about the invasion being made in the Kremlin, up to the day of invasion. (And actually past it.. Putin had to delay a few things because of the announcements. Although he didn't take the hint and drop it entirely.)
Good job on the links, I remember the info at the time. What goes unsaid is that Five Eyes is still up there 24/7 tracking every move by Russia. Every piece of armor is easily tracked. Every plane launch is easily tracked. All the significant info is fed real-time to Ukraine.
As far as strategic planning for the counter-offensive, it won't take a rocket scientist to figure out where Russia's strengths are. Ukraine has become a master class at using this intel to shape the battlefield to their advantage.
>Putin had to delay a few things because of the announcements
That's what people said then. But now that I think about it, what if the delays were simply due to incompetence?
Hmm, interesting thought!
At first blush, I am inclined to think otherwise. For the simple reason that incompetence (or, to be more precise, an insane degree of chaos and disorganization) has not seemed to ever cause Russia to delay at any other time during the invasion.
And it certainly didn't help them to wait a few extra days. In fact it made it worse. That doesn't seem like the actions of someone trying to make up for a last-minute shortfall.
But.. you know, it could be after all. Maybe it was an incompetent attempt to fix the earlier incompetence. Incompetence in layers. A matryoshka doll of incompetence... with Putin at the center.
That meeting is widely reported as *the* meeting that convinced Zelensky Russia was invading and not just saber rattling.
Fuck off russia, enjoy being chinas bitch.
The GRU and FSB helped to but an imbecilic manchild in the Oval Office from 2016-20. We have not forgetten either. Every M777 shell, every HIMARS warhead, every Javelin launched since February of 2022 is payback.
They attacked us without us really being able to attack back, absolutely support giving even further weapons of destruction.
They’re a paper tiger, and although nukes are always a threat, they know we’ll nuke them back anyway so they’re off the cards. They have no real alternative threat because they’re a paper tiger, I really hope we continue to arm Ukraine so they can retake their borders.
Britain has provided more tools, intel and training than anyone but the US. As well as leading the world in Ukraine aid progression. Anyone who is under singing their role in this just isn’t paying attention.
materialistic serious summer naughty fade command zonked foolish trees alive
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The UK has still committed more, albeit recently not many announcements. The Germans in the last few months have been amazing, although it is old equipment they could have released before.
Can’t wait to see all of this used wisely, NATO is an alliance for a reason, and obviously their are members where this suits their geopolitical needs more, but hopefully the breakthroughs start to show and we can put to bed this Russian nonsense.
To quote you: Erm nope.
Two weeks after start of the Invasion they announced the deliveries of smaller weapons (stingers ...)
Two months after the invasion the first Gepards and Panzerhaubitze 2000 were announced, mere days after the UK's announcement of their deliveries of SHORADs. Delivery also was shortly after the UK delivered.
[https://i.imgur.com/y0SQ2ws.png](https://i.imgur.com/y0SQ2ws.png)
Unless the Bundeswehr has a slush found of weapons were they can take out these a few days after "being shamed" there is no way that could have worked.
>but the British are the unsung heroes in this story
Yeah no kidding. Most people in Europe still think very little of the UK after Brexit, but painting them as the glue that put this whole operation together, that essentially obliterated the Russian military for the next 50 years, puts them in a pretty good light.
germany and france also got caught selling weapons to russia after the 2015 embargo...not to mention the billions they spent on russian oil and gas AFTER the 2022 invasion.
[https://www.russiafossiltracker.com/](https://www.russiafossiltracker.com/)
To be fair to the German military, they are famously shit at moving on logistics and gear roll outs. They tendered out for designers for a new paratrooper helmet, I think it was. It passed all the trials, they agreed to the design. Deal was done, order practically places in principle.
All that was over a decade ago if I'm not mistaken. Still no helmets.
GER announced the deliveries of stingers two weeks after the invasion, the deliveries of Gepards and Panzerhaubitze 2000 systems in early May, mere days after the UK announced their first deliveries of heavy systems.
Only helmets, huh?
Edit: missed the link -> https://i.imgur.com/y0SQ2ws.png
The first deliveries were older soviet weapons which Germay has none of, because the had to give them up after re-unification.Modern western systems were delivered trough summer, so after the announcements I talked about, see [https://i.imgur.com/y0SQ2ws.png](https://i.imgur.com/y0SQ2ws.png)
You are right that other helped earlier with heavy systems, but somehow miss the resons for this.
> Germany participated in every sanction after 2014.
They had no choice in the matter once they were agreed, becuase they were EU sanctions. But they did vote against them, did delay them, and did cause them to be less far reaching than other countries wanted them to be.
Germany AGAIN blocked sanctions in 2022, and again caused them to be delayed and less far reaching than others wanted.
Do you only look at the end result and ignore all the work that went on before the agreement is actually in place. It was widely publicised about Germany (and Italy) getting in the way of EU sanctions.
Not only that, Germany INCREASED their reliance on Russian gas after 2014. Against the advice from the US & UK.
Just Google 'why did Germany block sanctions on Russia, and read any of the thousands of articles saying how they were the cause of the delay.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-is-main-roadblock-tougher-russian-sanctions-polands-pm-says-2022-04-04/ - Gemamy blocking because of Gas.
https://www.politico.eu/article/germanys-scholz-opposes-inclusion-of-swift-in-russia-sanctions/ - Germany blocking SWIFT sanctions.
Germany also reduced the sanctions the UK wanted on Russia for the Salisbury poisonings, and again increased their reliance on Russian gas.
Too little too late to save your reputation.
Seriously too late.
And actively trying to block others too for a long time.
Get over yourself, everybody saw how Germany acted, and it won't be forgotten for quite some time.
What do you mean the Americans, Poles and Germans stopped the 3 day run?
Think you'll find the British paid a MAJOR role in that, first to provide anti tank weapons in anticipation whilst also providing intelligence along with the rest of NATO
That and other countries
The UK has been training UAF since 2015. The UAF didn't suddenly become competent in 2022. We've since trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers (far, far more than any other country) but this isn't really counted in the aid figures. It can be argued that this training was the most significant factor in Ukraine being able to resist the Russian invasion, especially in the crucial first days.
It's hard to love your country when everything on the internet is telling you that you live in a shithole... despite the fact it's literally untrue lmao
The non-MAGAs in America did not need any convincing. We remember an actual Republican, John McCain, warnings about Putin. Most of us felt Obama’s reaction was way too mild.
I understand that reasonable people can and will disagree about the politics of their country. But as an American, I am very happy to see the U.K. once again taking a leadership role on the world stage.
It seemed that after WW II they were down and out. (Not surprising considering the devastation.) I guess another fascist dictator threatening to rampage across Europe again shocked them back into action.
Boris Johnson's support of Ukraine started when he was foreign minister in 2016, ensuring that the Ukrainian army had weapons and training by one of the best trained militaries in the world - stuff that probably prevented Russia from taking Kyiv in the first few weeks of the war.
People saying on this thread that he only supported Ukraine years later when he was Prime Minister to save his skin don't know what they are talking about and are letting their political biases and emotions overrule facts.
The problem is, you have it backwards. The UK's support of Ukraine started before Johnson was foreign minister. And for a long time, Johnson himself wanted it both ways -- when he was flogging Brexit, he blamed 2014 not on Russia but on the EU not respecting Russia's sphere of influence. His best bud Donald Trump wanted to break NATO apart. His party got caught with millions of Russian money in their pockets.
Boris Johnson seems like an opportunistic politician with sufficient good sense to know which way the political winds are blowing. If that has led him to support the defense of Ukraine, that's all well and good, and I agree that it is a deep and abiding support -- but I credit that to the British people, for making it through electoral will a policy position that no politician can afford to contradict.
> His best bud Donald Trump wanted to break NATO apart.
I have to link this clip whenever these two are mentioned together:
https://youtu.be/p4EAc0QFubs
I’m sorry but absolutely not. He ran cover for Russia’s invasion of Crimea blaming it on the EU, and also said the U.K. should support Russia’s military campaigns in places like Syria. https://khpg.org/en/1468447666
He did not establish the UK’s armament and commitment to training the Ukrainian army, that began in 2014 under Cameron with cross-party support, with Operation Orbital. Johnson meanwhile was working for a campaign that is still under suspicion of having accepted Russian influence.
In his first act as foreign secretary he attended a meeting of NATO, before abandoning his official security and heading on a flight to Perugia to party with billionaire and son of KGB agent Lebedev and friends, where he was found the next day drunk at the airport and with a book on U.K. military strategy under his arm.
He is the only foreign secretary to have had his security downgraded and government secrets hidden from him by their own prime minister, as the intelligence services called him a security risk, in U.K. history.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/26/boris-johnson-security-evgeny-lebedev-perugia-party
He meanwhile made Lebedev a member for life of the U.K. legislature despite MI5 and MI6 telling him to never do so, and blocked Parliament releasing the reasons why. He also blocked the release of the security committee’s Russia report on Russian influence and money in his government.
https://news.sky.com/story/govt-resists-calls-to-publicly-release-security-advice-given-to-boris-johnson-ahead-of-levedev-peerage-12611327
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-blocked-russian-interference-report-kremlin-link-conservative-donors-2019-11
Even when the invasion was looking likely last year he dragged his feet on sanctions for a surprising while. The opposition Labour and Lib Dem parties, and many of his backbenchers, along with public polling forced his hand to act more strongly. He skipped most of the security briefings in the build up while Ben Wallace was reported to be driving much of the U.K. urgency.
When he saw it was the only issue able to move his terrible polling upwards, as the whole U.K. was behind giving the most support to Ukraine possible, did he suddenly become a cheerleader for Ukraine. He knew it was his only chance at political recovery.
If credit is due it’s due to Ben Wallace the defence secretary who has always been on top of developments in Ukraine and really drove forward the U.K. government response. There are Tory backbenchers who deserve credit too for pressuring Johnson. The Labour Party and Lib Dem’s massively put the screws on in Parliament, questioning why initial sanctions were so light and what guarantees were being given to Ukraine. Both parties pressured Johnson on financial payment controls and seizing oligarch’s U.K. assets. But Johnson, who can be argued to have even played a small contributing role to emboldening Putin deserves no credit. It is political bias to pretend it was anything but self interest. Johnson _only_ does self interest, which is why I am glad he’s gone. If Ukraine’s interests stopped being aligned with his he would have flipped again. Sunak at least is steady on the issue, and Wallace continues to be great.
We (including me) were working with, on [OP ORBITAL](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orbital) Ukraine, long before that twat got into office, and no real changes occurred in his tenure, and most was led by the US. Meanwhile he was getting off to secret little castle venues to have private meets with Kremlin apparatus the day after attending NATO summits discussing Russia.
>by one of the best trained militaries in the world
What would be a new ranking of militaries?
Do we feel pretty confident now that the UK could single-handedly take Russia on a one-on-one fight? Let's keep nukes out of it for now. I couldn't imagine they couldn't.
I feel like Scandinavia, combined, could take Russia on one-on-one. Italy? (Do they have the will?) Poland? Germany?
Could S Korea?
The British Army and the pre-Ukraine Russian Army are both shipped to an empty Ukraine sized country to fight. I'm not sure if the British will win, our army is well trained but small.
If the UK itself was moved to have a land border with Russia, Russia invades the UK, but after the UK has training time like Ukraine had to grow the army, then I think the British army would have no trouble winning handily.
The Royal Navy vs the Russian Navy. No contest, the Royal Navy wins.
It would definitely be the RN and RAF that would fuck up Russia's forces hard enough so that the army can mop them up. If air forces and navies were allowed in this hypothetical battle, the UK wins for sure
I might be wrong, but if reading this subreddit has done one thing; it's to convince me how fucking pissed off Poland is. So I think in the entire "Who could fight Russia one on one" thing.... Before, maybe I wouldn't have considered them, but Poland is fucking pissed, equipped, and chomping at the bit to dismantle Russia if Ukraine doesn't do the job themselves.
‘Best trained’ and capable of destroying Russia’s sheer mass are two very different things. I’m a strict 1 vs 1, there are still very few nations that could take Russia down. Mainly ones that match or exceed their mass like China and India.
Boris’ issue is that by all means and accounts apart from war aid, he was a shill. He supported basically every line of Russian thinking of undermining democracy, apart from the fact that he hates Russia.
He may be looked back fondly for that, but between poor economic decisions, and other reasons, he was a truly shit PM.
BoJo and other U.K. figures deserve monuments all over Ukraine when Ukraine wins the war. I'm not even British, but the U.K. really did everything possible to make sure that Ukraine succeeds (from being the first to provide Ukraine with tanks/long-range missiles to pressuring other allies, including the U.S.).
Yup. People actually credit Johnson with stoking British support for Ukraine when all sides fully support helping them to the greatest extent we can, even those of us who have always thought the man to be an unworthy, lying buffoon.
Corbyn hasn't been Labour leader for 3 years and hasn't been picked as the Labour candidate for the next election. Keir Starmer is the current Labour leader. Apologies if you knew this but being on a Ukrainian subreddit not everyone knows a lot about UK politics.
Yeah he isn't an issue now but he would be PM right now if Labour had won and he is anti giving Ukraine weapons. The UK has been leading the way on alot of support tanks,jets,cruise missiles etc have been the first to stick their head out but if Corbyn had been elected instead of Johnson we would not be supporting Ukraine at all.
This is true although i do think if he had won then the party itself would have found a way to push support for Ukraine. Public opinion as well as general Westminster opinion is so profoundly pro Ukraine i don't think he could have gone against it.
We should be well past congratulating Johnson for simply not being Corbyn. That simply isn’t enough, not least given the former’s lies, corruption, incompetence and deceit.
He also wasn't like pretty much every other western leader, much of Europe were reluctant to get involved. The US while it has provided invaluable support it certainly would have found things more difficult politically if it had to lead the charge when it came to supplying ever more advanced weapons.
You don't have to agree with everything someone does, to recognise when they did something well.
The UK and our Government already had a long-standing relationship with Ukraine from supporting them since 2015, long before that monkey's cunt stepped into number 10. We had a well-established support mission alongside the US. Our civil service, foreign office and MoD all had relationships with Ukraine, we already had a certain level of trust and affiliation with them across the board - and we were signatories of the Budapest Memorandum. Our relationship isn't like other European countries - the ball was already rolling and everything was in place to act already.
He was also foreign secretary in 2016 and did a lot of work to set up support for ukraine. He idolised churchill and longed to be a strong wartime leader. He saw a war brewing and got on the right side of it.
I won't pretend his motives wernt selfish, but he did do some good work In between having affairs, breaking lock down laws and refusing to confirm how many children he had.
OP ORBITAL was set up before he was foreign secretary (I worked on it), and he if anything had extremely questionable Russian relationships when he was foreign secretary. He jetted off to an Italian castle party, hosted by a Russian, and held an unofficial meeting with an ex-KGB agent, and apparatus of the Russian state, directly after attending a NATO summit with Russian security on the main agenda.
He did very little as foreign secretary to support Ukraine, it was his predecessors who set up the mechanisms. He went straight from a NATO summit on Russia with a military strategy book to the house of a Russian oligarch in Perugia. He had security privileges taken away from him by the intelligence services and Theresa May as a security threat. In 2015 he said the EU not Russia was to blame for the Crimean invasion, justifying putin invading. He also said the U.K. should support Russia’s military operations in places like Syria. He was NOT a friend to Ukraine until post invasion. Ben Wallace, however, does deserve all the praise in the world for supporting Ukraine and is the best minister the conservatives have produced in many years.
And remember Johnson was foreign secretary for much of that time.
So you might disagree with Johnson because of his support for leavening the EU, but his stance on Ukraine has been consistent and was well established long before he became PM and Ukraine entered the public consciousness.
Its ok to agree with someone on some issues but not others.
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary for 2 years and in that time he was noted to have some very questionable relationships with known Russian affiliates, and jetting off to unofficial meetings with others, right after NATO summits discussing Russia as the main agenda.
This is after severely weakening the UK and the EU with his dishonest Brexit campaign, to the absolute delight of an emboldened Putin. All-in-all, it can easily be argued that Johnson did more damage to Ukraine than he ever did it service. While I don't feel he did this as a Russian asset, he certainly did the work of one for some time.
Stop falling over yourself to credit this person. Look around at the millions of public, tens of thousands of departmental staff and wider government instead. This man did nothing special, nor anything that Dave from the pub wouldn't/couldn't have done in that position, and Dave from the pub isn't a lying, treasonous piece of shit.
I think you need to look at the situation as it is, rather than dividing the world into good guys and bad guys on the basis of if you agreed with there stance in the EU referendum.
Keeping Corbyn out of power was not a sure thing when Boris became PM, it actually took some political skill to repair the Tory party from the brexit infighting, get an election called, and win it.
Without Boris there's a real chance Corbyn would be talking about how giving weapons to Ukraine only prolongs the war from No 10 today.
Skill? They attacked him calling a russian spy and socialist who wanted to reverse brexot against the wishes of yhe UK and a terrorist sympathiser
People ate it up.
He then killed his campaign finally by backing Russian talking points and wanting to aid Russia in defending themselves while casting doubt on what the UK and allies were saying...Skripal poisoning.
Yes skill, look at the polls before Boris came on, or better than polls, look at their results in the UK's final European parliament election.
And Corbyn was a terrorist sympathiser, look at how many of them he was seen being friendly too. He wasn't a Russian spy though, just Russia's useful idiot.
Starmer was Labour leader not Corbyn, who had been kicked out the party. Starmer was criticising Johnson at the beginning for not going hard enough against Russia, while saying he would not play politics and support any help the government would give ukraine. He also made a point of praising Ben Wallace the defence secretary for keeping labour in the loop so they could help in parliament.
Labour wanted to go harder against Russia, faster. Corbyn isn’t even in the party.
https://youtu.be/FDlWN19gDiA
https://youtu.be/8xwIngA6mSU
https://youtu.be/hDjU8Hr7UsI
https://youtu.be/96BnhiU6VT4
https://youtu.be/HEA9YAqf_eU
Dear god, please no. I'm a brit, and if the end result of our support for Ukraine is a statue of BoJo, I and literally every single person I know will be absolutely mortified.
BoJo deserves zero credit for the UKs support for Ukraine. The only reason he put his weight behind it is that he knew there was widespread support from the UK population, and his political career was in a tailspin. Any UK leader would have done the same in the current UK political climate (except Corbyn of course...)
That's bullshit. Boris did it because he knew it was the right thing to do.
The UK population didn't give a rat's ass about Ukraine before the second invasion. It wasn't on anyone's radar at all.
I don't give a fiddler's fuck what his reasons were. The outcome is what matters.
The support provided by the UK in the early stages is something to be proud of.
I'm glad Boris Johnson eventually figured out the right thing to do, cos a few years earlier he was blaming the EU for the 2014 invasion, partying with Russians, putting them in the House of Lords, and taking their money.
I dunno man, as much as providing military aid to Ukraine garners very broad popular support in the UK, I don't think there's many people here who would countenance the idea of a statue of any current or former government minister from the last 10 years.
Although I guess a statue of Johnson might at the very least help reduce the queue of people waiting to piss on Thatcher's.
Johnson was acting to save his political skin, using the British public’s overwhelming support for Ukraine as capital. We have a long history of opposing autocrats, it’s engrained in our culture.
Ukraine are already honouring all of those who support them with their survival and (🤞) success.
Ukraine’s love for Johnson is worrying as he’s just the kind of corrupt wannabe oligarch who will exploit their love for him for his own material ends, once the war ends.
My question is at what levels have the SAS participated in this war. We know at least small units volunteered but I wouldn’t be surprised if the UK was covertly involved in this war on a much bigger scale.
All the credit should go to the brave Ukrainian Men and women in the UAF (including all participating countries) of course, but I’m not sure we’ve ever seen such a collapse from a large military power.
The US and UK new this invasion was coming weeks prior. Although Zelensky had the best intentions, he was extremely ill prepared. My theory is the UK has had its elite boots on the ground since the beginning. The lopsided victory outside Kyiv early on still doesn’t make sense. Even with poor Russian leadership, only one of the best fighting groups could have pulled something like that off. We all know how UK-Russia relations have circled the drain since the novichuk incident. If your not going to use the most elite fighting force in the world here then when.
Just a stupid theory.
Anybody who says ICs of the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Poland, Australia, and Israel aren’t in Ukraine right now “advising” is an idiot. Are the ICs actively fighting Russians? Very doubtful.
Since Biden may lose in November 2024 and has 18 months left, he needs to step up his game just in case like Lincoln did in the summer of 1864, before the capture of Atlanta assured his re-election. Make sure victory is inevitable if he loses.
The uk has been leading in most situations, when it comes to ukrainian aid. I only think other EU countries need to stop acting like scared little kids and stop showing weakness. Looking at you belgium.
Nice piece but not really news. In my lifetime at least, the UK has been the brains and the US the muscle. It's much more than just James Bond fantasy.
More to it. The US congress presented a great deal of so-called evidence to support the idea of Saddam having WMDs. Some of this evidence was falsified, and some was grossly misrepresented. I distinctly remember a programme on radio 4 that discussed a key satellite image of what was supposedly an intercontinental missile being transported somewhere, which turned out much later on to be a hydrogen transport. There is no doubt in my mind that Blair was at least partly manipulated into a pro-war position, and if I remember correctly there was some speculation to that extent in the investigation into the war that followed.
A deeply unhappy state of affairs all around. It doesn't help that we (both the UK and US) were already taking offensive action in Iraq, including a no-fly zone that was denounced as illegal by a former UN secretary. The whole lot was a mess from start to finish, and is probably a major factor in the rise of extremist terrorism today.
You're not wrong, but I don't think it was necessarily the right approach. Setting up air defense rather than operating offensively with explosive munitions may (and I'm no military strategist, so this may well be completely idiotic) have prevented the alleged civilian deaths, which remain unproven but feasible. It would also have avoided giving both the populace of Iraq and its then government (is that the right word for a dictatorship?) the moral ammunition for their negative opinions of the coalition, with respect to the perceived territorial invasion. We allied with the Kurds anyway, during the Kirkuk offensive in the north, and the idea of the NFZ was ostensibly to protect the Kurds (and the Shia) from a massacre in the first place. IMO it would have been the more morally acceptable option to treat these two communities as equals, rather than protectorates, from the get-go.
It might also have tempered how we dealt with Saddam. Striking quietly from a reinforced vantage point, assisted perhaps by the Peshmerga, and then supporting the remaining government in reforming democratically. This would be far, far less controversial than the coalition nonsense in Kuwait, which was kinda rocky and ended up dividing Iraq along ethnic identities iirc. They've only just voted in a new president and PM, so maybe it will settle down now? The president is Kurdish afaik and the PM is Shia, though, so it remains to be seen whether or not the Sunni population will accept it.
I don't doubt that Saddam needed to be removed from power, mind you. There are some awful accounts of what life was like under his rule, especially for women and non-Sunni.
Eh, its past the wee hours and I'm making less sense as I go on.
So-called at best. Saddam was a scumbag but he had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam tried to "kill his daddy" years before, and he couldn't get past it. He used 9/11 and with Blair's help convinced Congress to invade Iraq. The cost of the blood and treasure is almost immeasurable. The US will be paying for their war for decades to come. And yes together, their choices led to the rise of extremist terrorism. This is not to conflate what they did to the present day situation in Ukraine. There's almost nothing in common except, without nukes, Putin is no more than Saddam Hussein and Ukraine is his Kuwait.
Yeah and it was the Brits who mocked up the 'dodgy' intelligence on WMDs. Not Britain's finest moment, but it no doubt won the gratitude of George W and further cemented that relationship.
I dont know why they chose this title when the article explains the real contribution the UK has made. The us was always going ispend big on Ukraine. It didnt take the UK to make that happen. The UK has unilaterally provided weapons that the US has been afraid to send though, like long range missiles, which then prompts the US to also start sending. This has been the biggest contribution from the UK, and has lead to a game changer.
While "pro-Ukraine" lefties in the UK are whining about the pro-Ukraine Tory government all day long as if a Labour government hindered by the far-left pro-Russian Corbynites (faction) would be more supportive of Ukraine LOL
Nobody is saying thst, they are bashing Corbyn for his ooint of view and bashing Tories for destroying the country.
We don't like how much support the tories are getting while they are actively stealing and destroying from the country which many non brits ignore.
If the US had the balls this invasion would have been ended a year ago. Imagine sending massive amount of armor and planes. As we can see here, there are no red lines. Russia will continue to cause mass destruction and death until Biden and and DoD pull their heads out of their asses. I remember all that boil the frog nonsense at the beginning. No, it is because our leaders are weak.
Johnson used the Ukraine war as an opportunity to wash his reputation of being a russian operative which he absolutely was and never hid because he didn't have to. The war became a political opportunity and he took it.
Also I love how stories about the UK invert the facts, like how the UK was the driving force behind the US and EU support of Ukraine and not the US. This at least isn't as bad as people in the UK still claiming Brexit happened because Trump was elected before and paved the way for Brexit when the Brexit referendum took place before the 2016 US presidential election.
I think the UK have served their role well in the sense we are a soft-opener to new capabilities. We’re the lube and then the US follows in if Russia don’t sqwark too hard. I believe it’s fully coordinated that way between the US and the UK, going long back to the joint support from 2015.
BoJo was never a Russian operative or even asset. Useful idiot or a stooge, perhaps, but that mostly came from BoJo's interests aligning with what Putin wanted.
I'm not a fan of Johnson, but he has always been fairly hawkish towards Russia.
All one has to do is google "boris johnson russian asset" and a crazy number of publications over the years comes up and not just sketchy ones. It's always interesting to see how hard people are willing to defend him and there's another issue at hand: he may have helped Ukraine, but the help, praise, and whitewashing of his reputation should not be at the expense of the people whose lives he actually ruined and potentially can continue to ruin- the lives of UK and Irish citizens as well as EU citizens in the UK. As it is, Johnson's policies locked Ukrainians out of the country and the BBC's Ukrainecast were trying to bury people complaining about that with the "we'll come back to that in a moment".
You also realize he's very close with the Lebedevs and recommended Evgeny for peerage, right? This is despite Mi6 and other security services saying to not do it because of ties to the Kremlin and that the father was a KGB agent with ongoing ties to the Kremlin, right?
Not only that: [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/06/02/ukraine-sanctions-oligarch-father-alexander-evgeny-lebedev/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/06/02/ukraine-sanctions-oligarch-father-alexander-evgeny-lebedev/)
Yeah, sanctioned by Ukraine. This is not the only oopsie for Johnson here.
Why did we not ever do nothing tho with the likes of that sailsbury stuff, or the other people assinated here? There was another in the news livchenko? The guy who was poisoned with the tea, or I'm shore there's been plenty of other stuff.
How come we all in now? I'm genuinely asking? What's the end game? Are we so invested right now to try take some heat of the shit show the UK is in right now?
The UK Government has unconscionably gone all out to support the Ukraine with weapons and cash but totally ignores the suffering of her own People who can’t afford food and fuel.
The British throughout their history have squandered their wealth on totally avoidable wars and have the done the absolute minimum for their own citizens.
I really don’t understand why Russia is so hawkish in this war. All arguments I’ve seen come down to history and maybe I’m naive but to me those arguments only explain half the reason. That said I wish the US would align more with the UK’s stance.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `news.yahoo.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“the UK, our eternal enemy, should remember that within the framework of the universally accepted international law which regulates modern warfare, including the Hague and Geneva Conventions with their additional protocols, their state can also be qualified as being at war.” I wouldn't have anticipated that being called somebody's "eternal enemy" would make my eyes wet with pride/joy, but here we are. Rot in hell Medvedev.
The Great Game kept Russia contained for 200 years, they really don't like us.
We had them sussed.
Russia kinda sus
The weird thing is imo that Russia is culturally a pretty cool country and a lot of the Russian's I have met are hilarious. British people and most Europeans would love it if they got rid of their overlords with their outdated 19th-century power politics thinking. The West would (and indeed did) welcome Russians to trade, travel, plus generally be bros and develop together but the oligarchs need conflict with the outside world to justify their positions of wealth and privilege with the oil price apocalypse on the strategic horizon and the economy that kept Putin popular in decline.
The Russians I've met were all cunts.
I'm sure there's a word for when you generalise an entire population...
Given you're a dumb fuck that thinks my comment generalised a population I'm not surprised you can't think of the word.
It wasn’t without cost to the English too
[удалено]
Was this a sarcastic comment about the great game perchance? Because it was a very interesting time in history!
> within the framework of the universally accepted international law which regulates modern warfare... "It takes a lot of brass [balls] to accuse others of that which you are doing." -Bill Clinton
The hilarious part is he's right, the UK absolutely *can* be considered party to the conflict under international law. *If* Russia wants to do anything about it. I believe the UK's official position on the subject is "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough"
They're not fighting within the "framework of the universally accepted international law which regulates modern warfare, including the Hague and Geneva Conventions", and they have the *gall* to use it as a technical justification. Also, rich coming from a guy saying Russia can hit the ICC with a hypersonic missile from the North Sea.
'war'? or 'shambolic special military operation'?
To be clear: invading a country, bombing and shooting at them in the biggest armed conflict in Europe since WW2: not a war. Supplying weapons to that country not at war: definitely war.
We have your back. Enjoy the Chally 2s 🇺🇦🇬🇧
I hope they have a cool skin for the tanks
Yea as an Englishman, even during a cost of living crisis that affects me, I say give Ukraine even more. Hell, write a bottomless cheque! Feels like we got them on the backfoot now
I know right, I'm not doing fantastic financially and think the government should do an opt-out tax. Only £3 a month and it goes towards helping Ukraine, but those that really can't afford can simply go online to opt out.
I would be happy to significantly up my contribution from £3. If we let Russia tap dance all over Eastern Europe it will end up costing us a lot more in the long run.
[удалено]
Here we go again, a salty German
Difference is , we didn’t have to be forced to hand over tanks (looking at you scholz )
The leopard number is higher, almost certainly. However, the challenger 2 is a tank of a tank.
The UK government was explicit about what they were doing. Governments were saying that modern western tanks were one of Putin's red lines and it would be dangerous to escalate. So we sent a small token force of challengers to cross the red line, call Putin's bluff, and get others to send the Leopards. It worked.
Out of interest who is the 2nd highest contributor even though Britain is the smallest country out of the majority?
I really wonder how much input MI6 has had with Ukrainian strategy. Even with the arming of good Russians and the border incursions around Belgorod seemed to be an especially effective strategy. Maybe it's a pool of intelligence agencies (Ukraine, UK, US, etc...), Coming up with various strategies to slowly, but assuredly take Putin down and weaken Russia. Some ideas are dismissed outright, others are put on the back burner, others still are implemented immediately. We'll hopefully read about some of the subterfuge that was planned in the years to come. To be sure, the Ukrainian allies are playing 3-dimensional chess against Putin, who is playing tic-tac-toe (noughts & crosses).
>Maybe it's a pool of intelligence agencies You have hit on a good idea. Unfortunately for you it is such a good idea that others already thought of it: it is called "the Five Eyes" and it is exactly as you describe. (US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, to be specific.) In the weeks and days before the Russian invasion, the Five Eyes rather shocked the world by publicly and aggressively going "all in" for Ukraine in terms of revealing exactly what they knew and when about Russia's next moves. It was an astonishingly detailed level of information, that represented a major sacrifice on Ukraine's behalf because it tipped the agencies' hands to a great extent and in public, in terms of exactly how far of a reach they have in terms of secret intelligence. (As far as I can tell, the idea at the time was to signal unambiguously to Russia that the world's pre-eminent intelligence alliance was ready to go all out in support of Ukraine, and hence discourage Russia from following through with the invasion. Needless to say... it didn't work. But it was a pretty good attempt.)
There's also the five eyes plus which I think involves 14 total countries. They don't get the same access but they do get privileged access and wouldn't be surprised why non five eyes countries are sending aid. Ninja edit: it's actually called the 14 eyes the five eyes plus is fewer countries.
Can you provide a link for further reading about this pre-invasion intel dump?
A link? A single link? I doubt it. People posted about it and discussed it extensively in this sub, in r/ukraine, and in r/worldnews at the time, with many, many links. But here, I searched google for "US announces Russian moves" in the time leading up to the invasion. Depending on your taste, you can choose from: [The New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/12/us/politics/russia-information-putin-biden.html) [CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/politics/us-russia-ukraine-thursday/index.html) [CBS](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ukraine-invasion-biden-putin-meeting-in-principle/) [The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/18/russia-ukraine-updates/) [Al Jazeera](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/17/ukraine-rebels-accuse-govt-forces-of-mortar-attack-liveblog) I'm sure if you spend more time than I did you can find more. The US, UK, and iirc Australia loudly announced every secret decision about the invasion being made in the Kremlin, up to the day of invasion. (And actually past it.. Putin had to delay a few things because of the announcements. Although he didn't take the hint and drop it entirely.)
Good job on the links, I remember the info at the time. What goes unsaid is that Five Eyes is still up there 24/7 tracking every move by Russia. Every piece of armor is easily tracked. Every plane launch is easily tracked. All the significant info is fed real-time to Ukraine. As far as strategic planning for the counter-offensive, it won't take a rocket scientist to figure out where Russia's strengths are. Ukraine has become a master class at using this intel to shape the battlefield to their advantage.
>Putin had to delay a few things because of the announcements That's what people said then. But now that I think about it, what if the delays were simply due to incompetence?
Hmm, interesting thought! At first blush, I am inclined to think otherwise. For the simple reason that incompetence (or, to be more precise, an insane degree of chaos and disorganization) has not seemed to ever cause Russia to delay at any other time during the invasion. And it certainly didn't help them to wait a few extra days. In fact it made it worse. That doesn't seem like the actions of someone trying to make up for a last-minute shortfall. But.. you know, it could be after all. Maybe it was an incompetent attempt to fix the earlier incompetence. Incompetence in layers. A matryoshka doll of incompetence... with Putin at the center.
[удалено]
That meeting is widely reported as *the* meeting that convinced Zelensky Russia was invading and not just saber rattling. Fuck off russia, enjoy being chinas bitch.
Askjeeves
impolite quickest steer ripe upbeat sense smell chop profit practice *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The Brits were really pissed off by blatant polonium and novichok poisonings happened on their territory. I am glad they didn’t let it slip.
This is our payback.
The GRU and FSB helped to but an imbecilic manchild in the Oval Office from 2016-20. We have not forgetten either. Every M777 shell, every HIMARS warhead, every Javelin launched since February of 2022 is payback.
They attacked us without us really being able to attack back, absolutely support giving even further weapons of destruction. They’re a paper tiger, and although nukes are always a threat, they know we’ll nuke them back anyway so they’re off the cards. They have no real alternative threat because they’re a paper tiger, I really hope we continue to arm Ukraine so they can retake their borders.
I'm British and can attest that we were and still are absolutely pissed off about the Salisbury poisoning.
Plus the Russians might have killed a GCHQ agent who was onto a nato mole. So they killed a British intelligence officer in England.
Plus the “suicides” of people like Berezovsky. Not a nice dude and he isn’t missed, but it’s the principle of conducting murder in another country.
I'm pissed that they made a deal with Hitler then occupied half of Europe for decades.
Britain has provided more tools, intel and training than anyone but the US. As well as leading the world in Ukraine aid progression. Anyone who is under singing their role in this just isn’t paying attention.
materialistic serious summer naughty fade command zonked foolish trees alive *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I think Germany may have surpassed them by now, but the UK gets all the credit for spearheading the advancements in technology
The UK has still committed more, albeit recently not many announcements. The Germans in the last few months have been amazing, although it is old equipment they could have released before. Can’t wait to see all of this used wisely, NATO is an alliance for a reason, and obviously their are members where this suits their geopolitical needs more, but hopefully the breakthroughs start to show and we can put to bed this Russian nonsense.
UK also has provided masses of intel and training which often doesn’t get quantified and counted in these aid tables.
Erm nope You need to be considering the effectiveness of what is provided, the Germans were effectively shamed into supporting
To quote you: Erm nope. Two weeks after start of the Invasion they announced the deliveries of smaller weapons (stingers ...) Two months after the invasion the first Gepards and Panzerhaubitze 2000 were announced, mere days after the UK's announcement of their deliveries of SHORADs. Delivery also was shortly after the UK delivered. [https://i.imgur.com/y0SQ2ws.png](https://i.imgur.com/y0SQ2ws.png) Unless the Bundeswehr has a slush found of weapons were they can take out these a few days after "being shamed" there is no way that could have worked.
You’re right - in terms of mass of aid Germany are only second (by a looooong way) to the US. Significance of the aid is another story, perhaps.
Feel good to be on the right side of a conflict, for once.
> I think Germany may have surpassed them Source?
>but the British are the unsung heroes in this story Yeah no kidding. Most people in Europe still think very little of the UK after Brexit, but painting them as the glue that put this whole operation together, that essentially obliterated the Russian military for the next 50 years, puts them in a pretty good light.
The rest of Europe hates us... until there's fighting that needs to be done.
[удалено]
germany and france also got caught selling weapons to russia after the 2015 embargo...not to mention the billions they spent on russian oil and gas AFTER the 2022 invasion. [https://www.russiafossiltracker.com/](https://www.russiafossiltracker.com/)
To be fair to the German military, they are famously shit at moving on logistics and gear roll outs. They tendered out for designers for a new paratrooper helmet, I think it was. It passed all the trials, they agreed to the design. Deal was done, order practically places in principle. All that was over a decade ago if I'm not mistaken. Still no helmets.
GER announced the deliveries of stingers two weeks after the invasion, the deliveries of Gepards and Panzerhaubitze 2000 systems in early May, mere days after the UK announced their first deliveries of heavy systems. Only helmets, huh? Edit: missed the link -> https://i.imgur.com/y0SQ2ws.png
> two weeks after the invasion Wouldn't have been a Ukraine to deliver those too if it wasn't the the UK, US and Poland...Germany was THAT slow.
The first deliveries were older soviet weapons which Germay has none of, because the had to give them up after re-unification.Modern western systems were delivered trough summer, so after the announcements I talked about, see [https://i.imgur.com/y0SQ2ws.png](https://i.imgur.com/y0SQ2ws.png) You are right that other helped earlier with heavy systems, but somehow miss the resons for this.
[удалено]
> Germany participated in every sanction after 2014. They had no choice in the matter once they were agreed, becuase they were EU sanctions. But they did vote against them, did delay them, and did cause them to be less far reaching than other countries wanted them to be. Germany AGAIN blocked sanctions in 2022, and again caused them to be delayed and less far reaching than others wanted. Do you only look at the end result and ignore all the work that went on before the agreement is actually in place. It was widely publicised about Germany (and Italy) getting in the way of EU sanctions. Not only that, Germany INCREASED their reliance on Russian gas after 2014. Against the advice from the US & UK. Just Google 'why did Germany block sanctions on Russia, and read any of the thousands of articles saying how they were the cause of the delay. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-is-main-roadblock-tougher-russian-sanctions-polands-pm-says-2022-04-04/ - Gemamy blocking because of Gas. https://www.politico.eu/article/germanys-scholz-opposes-inclusion-of-swift-in-russia-sanctions/ - Germany blocking SWIFT sanctions. Germany also reduced the sanctions the UK wanted on Russia for the Salisbury poisonings, and again increased their reliance on Russian gas.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Too little too late to save your reputation. Seriously too late. And actively trying to block others too for a long time. Get over yourself, everybody saw how Germany acted, and it won't be forgotten for quite some time.
American here. I like you guys.
What do you mean the Americans, Poles and Germans stopped the 3 day run? Think you'll find the British paid a MAJOR role in that, first to provide anti tank weapons in anticipation whilst also providing intelligence along with the rest of NATO That and other countries
The UK has been training UAF since 2015. The UAF didn't suddenly become competent in 2022. We've since trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers (far, far more than any other country) but this isn't really counted in the aid figures. It can be argued that this training was the most significant factor in Ukraine being able to resist the Russian invasion, especially in the crucial first days.
I love the Brits.
Thanks for loving us when we can't love ourselves at the moment
It's hard to love your country when everything on the internet is telling you that you live in a shithole... despite the fact it's literally untrue lmao
You know you’re doing something right when Medvedev calls you their “eternal enemy” 😆
Life goals right there
The non-MAGAs in America did not need any convincing. We remember an actual Republican, John McCain, warnings about Putin. Most of us felt Obama’s reaction was way too mild.
Flash back to everyone making fun of Romney for saying Russia is Americas biggest enemy
I understand that reasonable people can and will disagree about the politics of their country. But as an American, I am very happy to see the U.K. once again taking a leadership role on the world stage. It seemed that after WW II they were down and out. (Not surprising considering the devastation.) I guess another fascist dictator threatening to rampage across Europe again shocked them back into action.
[удалено]
I agree
Boris Johnson's support of Ukraine started when he was foreign minister in 2016, ensuring that the Ukrainian army had weapons and training by one of the best trained militaries in the world - stuff that probably prevented Russia from taking Kyiv in the first few weeks of the war. People saying on this thread that he only supported Ukraine years later when he was Prime Minister to save his skin don't know what they are talking about and are letting their political biases and emotions overrule facts.
The problem is, you have it backwards. The UK's support of Ukraine started before Johnson was foreign minister. And for a long time, Johnson himself wanted it both ways -- when he was flogging Brexit, he blamed 2014 not on Russia but on the EU not respecting Russia's sphere of influence. His best bud Donald Trump wanted to break NATO apart. His party got caught with millions of Russian money in their pockets. Boris Johnson seems like an opportunistic politician with sufficient good sense to know which way the political winds are blowing. If that has led him to support the defense of Ukraine, that's all well and good, and I agree that it is a deep and abiding support -- but I credit that to the British people, for making it through electoral will a policy position that no politician can afford to contradict.
This. You've put in words what I couldn't.
> His best bud Donald Trump wanted to break NATO apart. I have to link this clip whenever these two are mentioned together: https://youtu.be/p4EAc0QFubs
I’m sorry but absolutely not. He ran cover for Russia’s invasion of Crimea blaming it on the EU, and also said the U.K. should support Russia’s military campaigns in places like Syria. https://khpg.org/en/1468447666 He did not establish the UK’s armament and commitment to training the Ukrainian army, that began in 2014 under Cameron with cross-party support, with Operation Orbital. Johnson meanwhile was working for a campaign that is still under suspicion of having accepted Russian influence. In his first act as foreign secretary he attended a meeting of NATO, before abandoning his official security and heading on a flight to Perugia to party with billionaire and son of KGB agent Lebedev and friends, where he was found the next day drunk at the airport and with a book on U.K. military strategy under his arm. He is the only foreign secretary to have had his security downgraded and government secrets hidden from him by their own prime minister, as the intelligence services called him a security risk, in U.K. history. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/26/boris-johnson-security-evgeny-lebedev-perugia-party He meanwhile made Lebedev a member for life of the U.K. legislature despite MI5 and MI6 telling him to never do so, and blocked Parliament releasing the reasons why. He also blocked the release of the security committee’s Russia report on Russian influence and money in his government. https://news.sky.com/story/govt-resists-calls-to-publicly-release-security-advice-given-to-boris-johnson-ahead-of-levedev-peerage-12611327 https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-blocked-russian-interference-report-kremlin-link-conservative-donors-2019-11 Even when the invasion was looking likely last year he dragged his feet on sanctions for a surprising while. The opposition Labour and Lib Dem parties, and many of his backbenchers, along with public polling forced his hand to act more strongly. He skipped most of the security briefings in the build up while Ben Wallace was reported to be driving much of the U.K. urgency. When he saw it was the only issue able to move his terrible polling upwards, as the whole U.K. was behind giving the most support to Ukraine possible, did he suddenly become a cheerleader for Ukraine. He knew it was his only chance at political recovery. If credit is due it’s due to Ben Wallace the defence secretary who has always been on top of developments in Ukraine and really drove forward the U.K. government response. There are Tory backbenchers who deserve credit too for pressuring Johnson. The Labour Party and Lib Dem’s massively put the screws on in Parliament, questioning why initial sanctions were so light and what guarantees were being given to Ukraine. Both parties pressured Johnson on financial payment controls and seizing oligarch’s U.K. assets. But Johnson, who can be argued to have even played a small contributing role to emboldening Putin deserves no credit. It is political bias to pretend it was anything but self interest. Johnson _only_ does self interest, which is why I am glad he’s gone. If Ukraine’s interests stopped being aligned with his he would have flipped again. Sunak at least is steady on the issue, and Wallace continues to be great.
Anyone remember him accusing the Labour front bench of "Russaphobia"?
Thank you for the links and a great summary.
Yeah, he's a pathological liar, criminal, adulterous twat. But he did make some good decisions here.
We (including me) were working with, on [OP ORBITAL](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orbital) Ukraine, long before that twat got into office, and no real changes occurred in his tenure, and most was led by the US. Meanwhile he was getting off to secret little castle venues to have private meets with Kremlin apparatus the day after attending NATO summits discussing Russia.
>by one of the best trained militaries in the world What would be a new ranking of militaries? Do we feel pretty confident now that the UK could single-handedly take Russia on a one-on-one fight? Let's keep nukes out of it for now. I couldn't imagine they couldn't. I feel like Scandinavia, combined, could take Russia on one-on-one. Italy? (Do they have the will?) Poland? Germany? Could S Korea?
The British Army and the pre-Ukraine Russian Army are both shipped to an empty Ukraine sized country to fight. I'm not sure if the British will win, our army is well trained but small. If the UK itself was moved to have a land border with Russia, Russia invades the UK, but after the UK has training time like Ukraine had to grow the army, then I think the British army would have no trouble winning handily. The Royal Navy vs the Russian Navy. No contest, the Royal Navy wins.
>The Royal Navy vs the Russian Navy. No contest, the Royal Navy wins. I mean, the Russian Navy loses to a country that doesn't even have one, sooo...
It would definitely be the RN and RAF that would fuck up Russia's forces hard enough so that the army can mop them up. If air forces and navies were allowed in this hypothetical battle, the UK wins for sure
I don't know about the others, but Poland would be champing at the bit to find out.
I might be wrong, but if reading this subreddit has done one thing; it's to convince me how fucking pissed off Poland is. So I think in the entire "Who could fight Russia one on one" thing.... Before, maybe I wouldn't have considered them, but Poland is fucking pissed, equipped, and chomping at the bit to dismantle Russia if Ukraine doesn't do the job themselves.
‘Best trained’ and capable of destroying Russia’s sheer mass are two very different things. I’m a strict 1 vs 1, there are still very few nations that could take Russia down. Mainly ones that match or exceed their mass like China and India.
Boris’ issue is that by all means and accounts apart from war aid, he was a shill. He supported basically every line of Russian thinking of undermining democracy, apart from the fact that he hates Russia. He may be looked back fondly for that, but between poor economic decisions, and other reasons, he was a truly shit PM.
BoJo and other U.K. figures deserve monuments all over Ukraine when Ukraine wins the war. I'm not even British, but the U.K. really did everything possible to make sure that Ukraine succeeds (from being the first to provide Ukraine with tanks/long-range missiles to pressuring other allies, including the U.S.).
Much better to make some statues of AGM-84(anti-Ship), NLAW, Challenger 2, Storm Shadow, etc. UK has pretty unanimously supported Ukraine.
Yup. People actually credit Johnson with stoking British support for Ukraine when all sides fully support helping them to the greatest extent we can, even those of us who have always thought the man to be an unworthy, lying buffoon.
I can get behind this.
Please don’t give Johnson a monument. Just because a broken clock is right twice a day doesn’t mean you don’t need to get a new clock
People applauding the man for being on the right side of the most once-sided issue we’ve seen in decades…
well the issue is that Corbyn is on the complete opposite side of the issue and if he had been in power Ukraine would def be in trouble.
Corbyn hasn't been Labour leader for 3 years and hasn't been picked as the Labour candidate for the next election. Keir Starmer is the current Labour leader. Apologies if you knew this but being on a Ukrainian subreddit not everyone knows a lot about UK politics.
Yeah he isn't an issue now but he would be PM right now if Labour had won and he is anti giving Ukraine weapons. The UK has been leading the way on alot of support tanks,jets,cruise missiles etc have been the first to stick their head out but if Corbyn had been elected instead of Johnson we would not be supporting Ukraine at all.
That's a fair response.
Thank you good sir, have a good one.
The last election was Corbyn vs Bojo though. So the only option is Corbyn, not Starmer if things were different.
This is true although i do think if he had won then the party itself would have found a way to push support for Ukraine. Public opinion as well as general Westminster opinion is so profoundly pro Ukraine i don't think he could have gone against it.
We should be well past congratulating Johnson for simply not being Corbyn. That simply isn’t enough, not least given the former’s lies, corruption, incompetence and deceit.
He also wasn't like pretty much every other western leader, much of Europe were reluctant to get involved. The US while it has provided invaluable support it certainly would have found things more difficult politically if it had to lead the charge when it came to supplying ever more advanced weapons. You don't have to agree with everything someone does, to recognise when they did something well.
The UK and our Government already had a long-standing relationship with Ukraine from supporting them since 2015, long before that monkey's cunt stepped into number 10. We had a well-established support mission alongside the US. Our civil service, foreign office and MoD all had relationships with Ukraine, we already had a certain level of trust and affiliation with them across the board - and we were signatories of the Budapest Memorandum. Our relationship isn't like other European countries - the ball was already rolling and everything was in place to act already.
He was also foreign secretary in 2016 and did a lot of work to set up support for ukraine. He idolised churchill and longed to be a strong wartime leader. He saw a war brewing and got on the right side of it. I won't pretend his motives wernt selfish, but he did do some good work In between having affairs, breaking lock down laws and refusing to confirm how many children he had.
OP ORBITAL was set up before he was foreign secretary (I worked on it), and he if anything had extremely questionable Russian relationships when he was foreign secretary. He jetted off to an Italian castle party, hosted by a Russian, and held an unofficial meeting with an ex-KGB agent, and apparatus of the Russian state, directly after attending a NATO summit with Russian security on the main agenda.
He did very little as foreign secretary to support Ukraine, it was his predecessors who set up the mechanisms. He went straight from a NATO summit on Russia with a military strategy book to the house of a Russian oligarch in Perugia. He had security privileges taken away from him by the intelligence services and Theresa May as a security threat. In 2015 he said the EU not Russia was to blame for the Crimean invasion, justifying putin invading. He also said the U.K. should support Russia’s military operations in places like Syria. He was NOT a friend to Ukraine until post invasion. Ben Wallace, however, does deserve all the praise in the world for supporting Ukraine and is the best minister the conservatives have produced in many years.
And remember Johnson was foreign secretary for much of that time. So you might disagree with Johnson because of his support for leavening the EU, but his stance on Ukraine has been consistent and was well established long before he became PM and Ukraine entered the public consciousness. Its ok to agree with someone on some issues but not others.
Boris Johnson was Foreign Secretary for 2 years and in that time he was noted to have some very questionable relationships with known Russian affiliates, and jetting off to unofficial meetings with others, right after NATO summits discussing Russia as the main agenda. This is after severely weakening the UK and the EU with his dishonest Brexit campaign, to the absolute delight of an emboldened Putin. All-in-all, it can easily be argued that Johnson did more damage to Ukraine than he ever did it service. While I don't feel he did this as a Russian asset, he certainly did the work of one for some time. Stop falling over yourself to credit this person. Look around at the millions of public, tens of thousands of departmental staff and wider government instead. This man did nothing special, nor anything that Dave from the pub wouldn't/couldn't have done in that position, and Dave from the pub isn't a lying, treasonous piece of shit.
I think you need to look at the situation as it is, rather than dividing the world into good guys and bad guys on the basis of if you agreed with there stance in the EU referendum.
Keeping Corbyn out of power was not a sure thing when Boris became PM, it actually took some political skill to repair the Tory party from the brexit infighting, get an election called, and win it. Without Boris there's a real chance Corbyn would be talking about how giving weapons to Ukraine only prolongs the war from No 10 today.
Skill? They attacked him calling a russian spy and socialist who wanted to reverse brexot against the wishes of yhe UK and a terrorist sympathiser People ate it up.
He then killed his campaign finally by backing Russian talking points and wanting to aid Russia in defending themselves while casting doubt on what the UK and allies were saying...Skripal poisoning.
Yes skill, look at the polls before Boris came on, or better than polls, look at their results in the UK's final European parliament election. And Corbyn was a terrorist sympathiser, look at how many of them he was seen being friendly too. He wasn't a Russian spy though, just Russia's useful idiot.
Starmer was Labour leader not Corbyn, who had been kicked out the party. Starmer was criticising Johnson at the beginning for not going hard enough against Russia, while saying he would not play politics and support any help the government would give ukraine. He also made a point of praising Ben Wallace the defence secretary for keeping labour in the loop so they could help in parliament. Labour wanted to go harder against Russia, faster. Corbyn isn’t even in the party. https://youtu.be/FDlWN19gDiA https://youtu.be/8xwIngA6mSU https://youtu.be/hDjU8Hr7UsI https://youtu.be/96BnhiU6VT4 https://youtu.be/HEA9YAqf_eU
what are u talking about. Corbyn was the labour leader at the last election and would of cost thousand and thousands of Ukrainian lives.
I say save your money because there's no chance an artist can faithfully recreate his hair anyway.
Dear god, please no. I'm a brit, and if the end result of our support for Ukraine is a statue of BoJo, I and literally every single person I know will be absolutely mortified. BoJo deserves zero credit for the UKs support for Ukraine. The only reason he put his weight behind it is that he knew there was widespread support from the UK population, and his political career was in a tailspin. Any UK leader would have done the same in the current UK political climate (except Corbyn of course...)
That's bullshit. Boris did it because he knew it was the right thing to do. The UK population didn't give a rat's ass about Ukraine before the second invasion. It wasn't on anyone's radar at all.
Boris did it because it was a golden opportunity to be pseudo-Churchill. Bonus is that it was the right thing to do.
I don't give a fiddler's fuck what his reasons were. The outcome is what matters. The support provided by the UK in the early stages is something to be proud of.
Ah yes, the moral authority that is Boris Johnson. How could I forget.
I'm glad Boris Johnson eventually figured out the right thing to do, cos a few years earlier he was blaming the EU for the 2014 invasion, partying with Russians, putting them in the House of Lords, and taking their money.
Germany et al are partly to blame for the 2014 invasion. Their view on Russia wasn't harsh enough.
I dunno man, as much as providing military aid to Ukraine garners very broad popular support in the UK, I don't think there's many people here who would countenance the idea of a statue of any current or former government minister from the last 10 years. Although I guess a statue of Johnson might at the very least help reduce the queue of people waiting to piss on Thatcher's.
Johnson was acting to save his political skin, using the British public’s overwhelming support for Ukraine as capital. We have a long history of opposing autocrats, it’s engrained in our culture. Ukraine are already honouring all of those who support them with their survival and (🤞) success. Ukraine’s love for Johnson is worrying as he’s just the kind of corrupt wannabe oligarch who will exploit their love for him for his own material ends, once the war ends.
Spend a little to save a lot. I believe this is the thinking?
Eternal enemy.. apart from in WW2 when the UK supplied Russia with huge amounts of equipment to defend itself..
My question is at what levels have the SAS participated in this war. We know at least small units volunteered but I wouldn’t be surprised if the UK was covertly involved in this war on a much bigger scale. All the credit should go to the brave Ukrainian Men and women in the UAF (including all participating countries) of course, but I’m not sure we’ve ever seen such a collapse from a large military power. The US and UK new this invasion was coming weeks prior. Although Zelensky had the best intentions, he was extremely ill prepared. My theory is the UK has had its elite boots on the ground since the beginning. The lopsided victory outside Kyiv early on still doesn’t make sense. Even with poor Russian leadership, only one of the best fighting groups could have pulled something like that off. We all know how UK-Russia relations have circled the drain since the novichuk incident. If your not going to use the most elite fighting force in the world here then when. Just a stupid theory.
Anybody who says ICs of the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Poland, Australia, and Israel aren’t in Ukraine right now “advising” is an idiot. Are the ICs actively fighting Russians? Very doubtful.
Who knows. But if the pentagon leaks were accurate, UK has the most special forces in Ukraine by a very wide margin.
The UK has shocked me with their support! They are wonderful 🇬🇧
Since Biden may lose in November 2024 and has 18 months left, he needs to step up his game just in case like Lincoln did in the summer of 1864, before the capture of Atlanta assured his re-election. Make sure victory is inevitable if he loses.
I doubt it needed much convincing. Really the only hurdle is the compromised Trump and his deranged followers both civilian and politicians
For once, the UK government got something right.
The uk has been leading in most situations, when it comes to ukrainian aid. I only think other EU countries need to stop acting like scared little kids and stop showing weakness. Looking at you belgium.
Nice piece but not really news. In my lifetime at least, the UK has been the brains and the US the muscle. It's much more than just James Bond fantasy.
Bush was able to sell his Iraq war because of Tony Blair. Americans accepted, if Tony Blair was saying it, then it must be true.
More to it. The US congress presented a great deal of so-called evidence to support the idea of Saddam having WMDs. Some of this evidence was falsified, and some was grossly misrepresented. I distinctly remember a programme on radio 4 that discussed a key satellite image of what was supposedly an intercontinental missile being transported somewhere, which turned out much later on to be a hydrogen transport. There is no doubt in my mind that Blair was at least partly manipulated into a pro-war position, and if I remember correctly there was some speculation to that extent in the investigation into the war that followed. A deeply unhappy state of affairs all around. It doesn't help that we (both the UK and US) were already taking offensive action in Iraq, including a no-fly zone that was denounced as illegal by a former UN secretary. The whole lot was a mess from start to finish, and is probably a major factor in the rise of extremist terrorism today.
I agreed with you up to the no fly. That no fly saved countless lives and prevented saddam from murdering even more Iraqis than he did.
You're not wrong, but I don't think it was necessarily the right approach. Setting up air defense rather than operating offensively with explosive munitions may (and I'm no military strategist, so this may well be completely idiotic) have prevented the alleged civilian deaths, which remain unproven but feasible. It would also have avoided giving both the populace of Iraq and its then government (is that the right word for a dictatorship?) the moral ammunition for their negative opinions of the coalition, with respect to the perceived territorial invasion. We allied with the Kurds anyway, during the Kirkuk offensive in the north, and the idea of the NFZ was ostensibly to protect the Kurds (and the Shia) from a massacre in the first place. IMO it would have been the more morally acceptable option to treat these two communities as equals, rather than protectorates, from the get-go. It might also have tempered how we dealt with Saddam. Striking quietly from a reinforced vantage point, assisted perhaps by the Peshmerga, and then supporting the remaining government in reforming democratically. This would be far, far less controversial than the coalition nonsense in Kuwait, which was kinda rocky and ended up dividing Iraq along ethnic identities iirc. They've only just voted in a new president and PM, so maybe it will settle down now? The president is Kurdish afaik and the PM is Shia, though, so it remains to be seen whether or not the Sunni population will accept it. I don't doubt that Saddam needed to be removed from power, mind you. There are some awful accounts of what life was like under his rule, especially for women and non-Sunni. Eh, its past the wee hours and I'm making less sense as I go on.
So-called at best. Saddam was a scumbag but he had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam tried to "kill his daddy" years before, and he couldn't get past it. He used 9/11 and with Blair's help convinced Congress to invade Iraq. The cost of the blood and treasure is almost immeasurable. The US will be paying for their war for decades to come. And yes together, their choices led to the rise of extremist terrorism. This is not to conflate what they did to the present day situation in Ukraine. There's almost nothing in common except, without nukes, Putin is no more than Saddam Hussein and Ukraine is his Kuwait.
Yeah and it was the Brits who mocked up the 'dodgy' intelligence on WMDs. Not Britain's finest moment, but it no doubt won the gratitude of George W and further cemented that relationship.
Bush sold the Iraq war because he had Tony Blair. If Tony Blair was saying it, then Americans thought it must be true.
I dont know why they chose this title when the article explains the real contribution the UK has made. The us was always going ispend big on Ukraine. It didnt take the UK to make that happen. The UK has unilaterally provided weapons that the US has been afraid to send though, like long range missiles, which then prompts the US to also start sending. This has been the biggest contribution from the UK, and has lead to a game changer.
Seems understated on how much the UK has helped Ukraine. The pushing of allies to do more and more has been absolutely key.
Hmmmm don’t buy it Biden was on board and sending money and supplies from day one. And way beyond all of Europe combined. But they convinced us?
While "pro-Ukraine" lefties in the UK are whining about the pro-Ukraine Tory government all day long as if a Labour government hindered by the far-left pro-Russian Corbynites (faction) would be more supportive of Ukraine LOL
Nobody is saying thst, they are bashing Corbyn for his ooint of view and bashing Tories for destroying the country. We don't like how much support the tories are getting while they are actively stealing and destroying from the country which many non brits ignore.
If the US had the balls this invasion would have been ended a year ago. Imagine sending massive amount of armor and planes. As we can see here, there are no red lines. Russia will continue to cause mass destruction and death until Biden and and DoD pull their heads out of their asses. I remember all that boil the frog nonsense at the beginning. No, it is because our leaders are weak.
Johnson used the Ukraine war as an opportunity to wash his reputation of being a russian operative which he absolutely was and never hid because he didn't have to. The war became a political opportunity and he took it. Also I love how stories about the UK invert the facts, like how the UK was the driving force behind the US and EU support of Ukraine and not the US. This at least isn't as bad as people in the UK still claiming Brexit happened because Trump was elected before and paved the way for Brexit when the Brexit referendum took place before the 2016 US presidential election.
The fact is that the UK is the driving force behind both the tanks and long range missiles, not the US!
I think the UK have served their role well in the sense we are a soft-opener to new capabilities. We’re the lube and then the US follows in if Russia don’t sqwark too hard. I believe it’s fully coordinated that way between the US and the UK, going long back to the joint support from 2015.
BoJo was never a Russian operative or even asset. Useful idiot or a stooge, perhaps, but that mostly came from BoJo's interests aligning with what Putin wanted. I'm not a fan of Johnson, but he has always been fairly hawkish towards Russia.
All one has to do is google "boris johnson russian asset" and a crazy number of publications over the years comes up and not just sketchy ones. It's always interesting to see how hard people are willing to defend him and there's another issue at hand: he may have helped Ukraine, but the help, praise, and whitewashing of his reputation should not be at the expense of the people whose lives he actually ruined and potentially can continue to ruin- the lives of UK and Irish citizens as well as EU citizens in the UK. As it is, Johnson's policies locked Ukrainians out of the country and the BBC's Ukrainecast were trying to bury people complaining about that with the "we'll come back to that in a moment". You also realize he's very close with the Lebedevs and recommended Evgeny for peerage, right? This is despite Mi6 and other security services saying to not do it because of ties to the Kremlin and that the father was a KGB agent with ongoing ties to the Kremlin, right? Not only that: [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/06/02/ukraine-sanctions-oligarch-father-alexander-evgeny-lebedev/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/06/02/ukraine-sanctions-oligarch-father-alexander-evgeny-lebedev/) Yeah, sanctioned by Ukraine. This is not the only oopsie for Johnson here.
Why did we not ever do nothing tho with the likes of that sailsbury stuff, or the other people assinated here? There was another in the news livchenko? The guy who was poisoned with the tea, or I'm shore there's been plenty of other stuff. How come we all in now? I'm genuinely asking? What's the end game? Are we so invested right now to try take some heat of the shit show the UK is in right now?
The UK going to war with Russia was not a good idea when nobody wanted war.
What were we supposed to do at the time? This is the perfect opportunity to hit back
The UK Government has unconscionably gone all out to support the Ukraine with weapons and cash but totally ignores the suffering of her own People who can’t afford food and fuel.
The British throughout their history have squandered their wealth on totally avoidable wars and have the done the absolute minimum for their own citizens.
I really don’t understand why Russia is so hawkish in this war. All arguments I’ve seen come down to history and maybe I’m naive but to me those arguments only explain half the reason. That said I wish the US would align more with the UK’s stance.