FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Starmer's Coalition of the Willing
Starmer's Coalition of the Willing
Jump to: Newest in thread
Starmer is pushing ahead and apparently the UK are spearheading the Coalition of the Willing to support Ukraine militarily and financially now and in a ceasefire. But before we rush down this road, shouldn't we first see exactly who the 'willing' are, and more pertinently the 'unwilling'. Why should the UK step into the breach if there are countries happy to sit on their hands and do nothing? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The Uk is co signatory to the 1994 Budapest memorandum.
But I agree let’s see who’s up for it. Interesting interviews on bbc from people in Ukraine that they doubt Russia will honour any agreement and come back again. One young interviewee said they should concede the Donbas to Russia, a small price to pay to stop the killing.
It does look like a peace deal is possible fingers crossed Trump makes it happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The United Nations had voted for Donbas to be independent over a decade ago to end the civil war. Only the Ukraine voted against and the US vetoed the decision. This could be a third solution. Devolved power to the Donbas region. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"The United Nations had voted for Donbas to be independent over a decade ago to end the civil war. Only the Ukraine voted against and the US vetoed the decision. This could be a third solution. Devolved power to the Donbas region."
Can you provide some info on that because the only mention I can see is that the UN said the pro Russian separatist parties referendum in 2014 was not legitimate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The United Nations had voted for Donbas to be independent over a decade ago to end the civil war. Only the Ukraine voted against and the US vetoed the decision. This could be a third solution. Devolved power to the Donbas region.
Can you provide some info on that because the only mention I can see is that the UN said the pro Russian separatist parties referendum in 2014 was not legitimate."
I heard about that in Jeffrey Sachs’s presentation to the EU parliament “The geopolitics of peace” that I watched about a week ago. It’s a long video. It’s also been transcribed.
He was the chief adviser setting up Ukraines economic system when it devolved from the USSR. Also been advisor to three UN secretary generals of the UN. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The United Nations had voted for Donbas to be independent over a decade ago to end the civil war. Only the Ukraine voted against and the US vetoed the decision. This could be a third solution. Devolved power to the Donbas region.
Can you provide some info on that because the only mention I can see is that the UN said the pro Russian separatist parties referendum in 2014 was not legitimate.
I heard about that in Jeffrey Sachs’s presentation to the EU parliament “The geopolitics of peace” that I watched about a week ago. It’s a long video. It’s also been transcribed.
He was the chief adviser setting up Ukraines economic system when it devolved from the USSR. Also been advisor to three UN secretary generals of the UN."
I am with the previous commentator - I assume you are talking about UN 68/262 which says the complete opposite to what you say. It was also voted for by 100 counties with 11 against. It is generally considered to be a pretty strong condemnation of Russia’s actions by the wider international community. There are no UN resolutions supporting Donbas independence. I am more than a little surprised your presenter didn’t know that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
My error. It was the Minsk Agreements.
“ Then after the coup came the Minsk agreements, especially Minsk II, which, incidentally, was modeled on South Tyrolean autonomy for the ethnic Germans in Italy. The Belgians too can relate to Minsk II very well, as it called for autonomy and language rights of the Russian speakers of Eastern Ukraine. Minsk II was supported unanimously by the UN Security Council.(*18) Yet the United States and Ukraine decided it would not be enforced. Germany and France, the guarantors of the Normandy process, also let it be ignored. This dismissal of Minsk II was another direct American unipolar action with Europe as usual playing a completely useless subsidiary role though it was guarantor of the agreement.” quote J Sachs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 8 weeks ago
|
"(*18) The Minsk II agreement was endorsed by the United Nations Security Council through Resolution 2202, which was adopted unanimously on February 17, 2015. "
You are just giving a quote by someone. Surely if the UN voted to recognise the independence of the Donbas you can point to that vote. I can’t find any such information. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"(*18) The Minsk II agreement was endorsed by the United Nations Security Council through Resolution 2202, which was adopted unanimously on February 17, 2015.
You are just giving a quote by someone. Surely if the UN voted to recognise the independence of the Donbas you can point to that vote. I can’t find any such information."
The larger piece is the quote. The quote of a reliable expert. The smaller piece that starts (*18) is a reference to support the quote listed in the transcript of his speech.
Google un.org Unanimously Adopting Resolution 2202 (2015), Security Council Calls on Parties to Implement Accords Aimed at Peaceful Settlement in Eastern Ukraine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My error. It was the Minsk Agreements.
“ Then after the coup came the Minsk agreements, especially Minsk II, which, incidentally, was modeled on South Tyrolean autonomy for the ethnic Germans in Italy. The Belgians too can relate to Minsk II very well, as it called for autonomy and language rights of the Russian speakers of Eastern Ukraine. Minsk II was supported unanimously by the UN Security Council.(*18) Yet the United States and Ukraine decided it would not be enforced. Germany and France, the guarantors of the Normandy process, also let it be ignored. This dismissal of Minsk II was another direct American unipolar action with Europe as usual playing a completely useless subsidiary role though it was guarantor of the agreement.” quote J Sachs."
The Minsk 2 agreements called for the complete removal of any non Ukrainian military and the total restoration of Ukrainian governmental control over its borders. It does say that certain regions should have more autonomy (which is probably what he is alluding to with Belgium) but that is under a decentralised structure and in no way implies the creation of a separate country.
Basically it is telling Russia to get lost. Pretty much every UN resolution on this war has told Russia to stop.
Minsk 2 was essentially nullified by the Russians when they recogisned Donetsk and Luhansk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My error. It was the Minsk Agreements.
“ Then after the coup came the Minsk agreements, especially Minsk II, which, incidentally, was modeled on South Tyrolean autonomy for the ethnic Germans in Italy. The Belgians too can relate to Minsk II very well, as it called for autonomy and language rights of the Russian speakers of Eastern Ukraine. Minsk II was supported unanimously by the UN Security Council.(*18) Yet the United States and Ukraine decided it would not be enforced. Germany and France, the guarantors of the Normandy process, also let it be ignored. This dismissal of Minsk II was another direct American unipolar action with Europe as usual playing a completely useless subsidiary role though it was guarantor of the agreement.” quote J Sachs.
The Minsk 2 agreements called for the complete removal of any non Ukrainian military and the total restoration of Ukrainian governmental control over its borders. It does say that certain regions should have more autonomy (which is probably what he is alluding to with Belgium) but that is under a decentralised structure and in no way implies the creation of a separate country.
Basically it is telling Russia to get lost. Pretty much every UN resolution on this war has told Russia to stop.
Minsk 2 was essentially nullified by the Russians when they recogisned Donetsk and Luhansk."
Nobody suggested the creation of a separate county. Minsk 2 addresses that acceptance of the Russian language and the devolution of powers to the region would be beneficial. Much like the Welsh have. That what I’m suggesting as a possible compromise toward peace. I would also suggest that none of us on here understand the geopolitical situation better than Jeffrey Sachs. He’s spent decades negotiating for and advising most of the players in the region. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My error. It was the Minsk Agreements.
“ Then after the coup came the Minsk agreements, especially Minsk II, which, incidentally, was modeled on South Tyrolean autonomy for the ethnic Germans in Italy. The Belgians too can relate to Minsk II very well, as it called for autonomy and language rights of the Russian speakers of Eastern Ukraine. Minsk II was supported unanimously by the UN Security Council.(*18) Yet the United States and Ukraine decided it would not be enforced. Germany and France, the guarantors of the Normandy process, also let it be ignored. This dismissal of Minsk II was another direct American unipolar action with Europe as usual playing a completely useless subsidiary role though it was guarantor of the agreement.” quote J Sachs.
The Minsk 2 agreements called for the complete removal of any non Ukrainian military and the total restoration of Ukrainian governmental control over its borders. It does say that certain regions should have more autonomy (which is probably what he is alluding to with Belgium) but that is under a decentralised structure and in no way implies the creation of a separate country.
Basically it is telling Russia to get lost. Pretty much every UN resolution on this war has told Russia to stop.
Minsk 2 was essentially nullified by the Russians when they recogisned Donetsk and Luhansk.
Nobody suggested the creation of a separate county. Minsk 2 addresses that acceptance of the Russian language and the devolution of powers to the region would be beneficial. Much like the Welsh have. That what I’m suggesting as a possible compromise toward peace. I would also suggest that none of us on here understand the geopolitical situation better than Jeffrey Sachs. He’s spent decades negotiating for and advising most of the players in the region."
I am well aware of who Jeffrey Sachs is - Professor at Columbia. His position is well known. He has valid points around the facts that historical context needs to be taken into account. I agree with that. Where he strays is that he tends to think that different historical contexts should apply to the West and Russia. He often states positions that suggest that international law needs to apply to western actions but he finds ways to omit similar Russian actions from the same framework. He tends to disregard Ukraine as an entity - mainly because he thinks that the Russian context means that it is Russian. I can empathise with his position that Russia feels threatened by NATO. He doesn’t generally empathise with the positon that NATO exists because Europe was the threatened by Russia. Both sides are valid.
Just so you are aware his work with the UN was historically in sustainable development - ie poverty reduction. He is not generally considered an expert on Russia or geopolitics. He is basically a talking head. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
He’s nothing to do with the ceasefire…. None of the Eu or Europe is, in fact they are holding the talks as far away from this as possible….. Quite frankly it’s embarrassing….. It’s obvious we (Europe) are desperate to keep this conflict going |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My error. It was the Minsk Agreements.
“ Then after the coup came the Minsk agreements, especially Minsk II, which, incidentally, was modeled on South Tyrolean autonomy for the ethnic Germans in Italy. The Belgians too can relate to Minsk II very well, as it called for autonomy and language rights of the Russian speakers of Eastern Ukraine. Minsk II was supported unanimously by the UN Security Council.(*18) Yet the United States and Ukraine decided it would not be enforced. Germany and France, the guarantors of the Normandy process, also let it be ignored. This dismissal of Minsk II was another direct American unipolar action with Europe as usual playing a completely useless subsidiary role though it was guarantor of the agreement.” quote J Sachs.
The Minsk 2 agreements called for the complete removal of any non Ukrainian military and the total restoration of Ukrainian governmental control over its borders. It does say that certain regions should have more autonomy (which is probably what he is alluding to with Belgium) but that is under a decentralised structure and in no way implies the creation of a separate country.
Basically it is telling Russia to get lost. Pretty much every UN resolution on this war has told Russia to stop.
Minsk 2 was essentially nullified by the Russians when they recogisned Donetsk and Luhansk.
Nobody suggested the creation of a separate county. Minsk 2 addresses that acceptance of the Russian language and the devolution of powers to the region would be beneficial. Much like the Welsh have. That what I’m suggesting as a possible compromise toward peace. I would also suggest that none of us on here understand the geopolitical situation better than Jeffrey Sachs. He’s spent decades negotiating for and advising most of the players in the region.
I am well aware of who Jeffrey Sachs is - Professor at Columbia. His position is well known. He has valid points around the facts that historical context needs to be taken into account. I agree with that. Where he strays is that he tends to think that different historical contexts should apply to the West and Russia. He often states positions that suggest that international law needs to apply to western actions but he finds ways to omit similar Russian actions from the same framework. He tends to disregard Ukraine as an entity - mainly because he thinks that the Russian context means that it is Russian. I can empathise with his position that Russia feels threatened by NATO. He doesn’t generally empathise with the positon that NATO exists because Europe was the threatened by Russia. Both sides are valid.
Just so you are aware his work with the UN was historically in sustainable development - ie poverty reduction. He is not generally considered an expert on Russia or geopolitics. He is basically a talking head."
To reduce his career to “basically a talking head” is laughable. The honours and awards he’s received clear that opinion up in a glance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer is pushing ahead and apparently the UK are spearheading the Coalition of the Willing to support Ukraine militarily and financially now and in a ceasefire. But before we rush down this road, shouldn't we first see exactly who the 'willing' are, and more pertinently the 'unwilling'. Why should the UK step into the breach if there are countries happy to sit on their hands and do nothing?"
Sum times people will follow a lead rather than the I will if you will attitude. When a country steps up it could incurage more to stand with it rather than the if we do this will you do the same.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So much for European unity. Meloni has now said Italy wants no part in the Coalition of the Willing and it turns out Macron has been lobby hard behind the scenes to exclude UK from EU defence programmes. So where does that leave us? Why get involved at all for that matter? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it turns out Macron has been lobby hard behind the scenes to exclude UK from EU defence programmes. So where does that leave us? "
what did you expect though.... we shafted france with aukus and ended up with the americans being unreliable, plus we are the pariah state on the continent now after the lunatic fringe had their 5 mins of fame 9 years ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it turns out Macron has been lobby hard behind the scenes to exclude UK from EU defence programmes. So where does that leave us?
what did you expect though.... we shafted france with aukus and ended up with the americans being unreliable, plus we are the pariah state on the continent now after the lunatic fringe had their 5 mins of fame 9 years ago."
Fair comment, but why then does Starmer feel it necessary to lead the charge on his white stallion? For once, lets sit it out and avoid another generation of lost sons and daughters. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 7 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"So much for European unity. Meloni has now said Italy wants no part in the Coalition of the Willing and it turns out Macron has been lobby hard behind the scenes to exclude UK from EU defence programmes. So where does that leave us? Why get involved at all for that matter? "
EU defence, sounds like a banking institution
Personally I think they should be concentrating on strengthening European capabilities and not getting bogged down with EU bureaucracy in Brussels. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"it turns out Macron has been lobby hard behind the scenes to exclude UK from EU defence programmes. So where does that leave us?
what did you expect though.... we shafted france with aukus and ended up with the americans being unreliable, plus we are the pariah state on the continent now after the lunatic fringe had their 5 mins of fame 9 years ago.
Fair comment, but why then does Starmer feel it necessary to lead the charge on his white stallion? For once, lets sit it out and avoid another generation of lost sons and daughters."
Like Trump said they’ve had three years. Lots of meetings, expensive hotels and air travel. Photo shoots and handshakes
Ukraine never asked for troops. Just weapons, a lot of them. Europe failed dismally to supply them
I agree move on. Russia has won. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Russia has won this war.
due to Europes cowardice
"
Yes they have, but not sure it's cowardice, incompetence or the usual lack of unity. There's a case for UK to invest all defence ££ in nukes and let them get on with it on the ground. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He’s nothing to do with the ceasefire…. None of the Eu or Europe is, in fact they are holding the talks as far away from this as possible….. Quite frankly it’s embarrassing….. It’s obvious we (Europe) are desperate to keep this conflict going "
Only with talk |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Russia has won this war.
due to Europes cowardice
Yes they have, but not sure it's cowardice, incompetence or the usual lack of unity. There's a case for UK to invest all defence ££ in nukes and let them get on with it on the ground."
more reliance on the US who have failed to launch the new nukes we've wasted hundreds of billions on? really? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
