Readers are split on the prime minister’s proposals for a European ‘reassurance force’, debating Britain's military readiness, war escalation risks, and the UK’s duty to counter Russia. Sir Keir Starmer’s proposal to deploy British troops to Ukraine as part of a European “reassurance force” has sparked strong reactions among Independent readers.
The plan, developed with France, would see troops stationed in key locations — such as cities, ports, and nuclear sites — focusing on intelligence gathering and airspace monitoring rather than frontline combat. However, Kremlin officials have condemned the proposal, warning that any Nato presence in Ukraine would be seen as a direct threat.
Many readers opposed Sir Keir’s idea, arguing that Britain’s military is already overstretched and underfunded. Some insisted that no deployment should take place without a major increase in defence spending, while others feared that even a limited presence could escalate tensions and risk a wider war.
Some readers supported sending troops, believing Britain must stand against Russian aggression. A few even called for the UK to take a more aggressive stance rather than waiting for US intervention. Others suggested alternative solutions, including a UN-led peacekeeping force instead of a Nato deployment.
Here’s what you had to say:. How dare Starmer offer up our servicemen and women, without agreeing to rapidly and massively increase defence spending? A complete tone-deaf betrayal. With the right resources, our military can do what is required to defend the UK and Europe. So I vote “no” without the proper funding.
Sirstan. This is not 1939. Starmer is not Churchill. It is not Britain alone that is at threat but the whole of Europe. As such, it is Europe that has to take a bold and strong stand, bravely and collectively. The current United States administration is completely and wholeheartedly prepared to throw Ukraine... and, by extension, Europe...to the wolves, in order to break or at least weaken the Russia/China alliance. To what end.. .to the end that Trump can "make America Great again" by holding on to its military supremacy... no matter who it disposes of along the way.
This is not a time for Braun and muscle on Britain's and Europe's behalf but a time for Blitzkrieg fast thinking and action. Ukraine and Europe are being sidelined by the world's two military superpowers. China will, at least to some extent, be sidelined too.
Britain, Europe, and China, put your thinking caps on FAST... and consider where a dictator-style US/Russia-run world is going to leave you. ClintCox. No – why do we feel the need to go gallivanting off to foreign places to fight with Johnny Foreigner? We do NOT have an empire anymore and I don't understand why our Prime Ministers continually want to come across as strong by sending British young men off to war.
WednesdayOwl. Agree 100 per cent with those who say no deployment without an immediate and large increase in UK defence spending. How can the PM promise UK forces (and remember, if he promises, say, 5000 troops, he'll need 15000, due to the rotation of operations–training–R&R/Leave), where are these troops going to come from?.
All UK armed forces are understaffed and overstretched. The UK Government (and all European Nato countries) need to take action this day – to demonstrate to Russia and the US that we take our security seriously and are willing to pay for it!. No, absolutely not. We need to expand our DEFENCE spending because Putin is a threat. The UK and other Nato countries need to move away from American influence, as Trump sees traditional allies as their weakness. So be it.
Putting UK troops on the ground in Ukraine will not achieve anything, except bring forward a larger Europe-wide conflict before we are fully prepared for one. Chuckiethebrave. No, absolutely not. Though perhaps we should be considering if British troops would even be allowed in Ukraine. When things finally arrive at the negotiating table, the Russians will have a strong hand, and they will be making certain demands. The UK and the EU might not be in any position to deny these demands.
Absolutely not. One false move by either party – through a misunderstood command, a rogue operative, or a technical glitch –could launch us into WW3. qbsaul. Any peacekeeping efforts should be solely under the umbrella of the United Nations. Further, it should be the UN that presides over peace talks and not Donald Trump.
We all know that Trump hero worships Putin as a strong man, and that his involvement in the Ukraine peace process is only as a means to massage his ego and elevate himself to world statesmanship. Trump's only interest in Ukraine is what he can get out of the deal. He has his eye on 500 billion dollars' worth of rare earth minerals. He has no interest in Ukraine's sovereign rights, or the protection of its people. Trump is not fit to lead any peace talk, and Zelensky is right to reject his 'demands'.
-plays-for-the-University-of-Connecticut-in-2018.jpeg?auto=webp&width=800)
