Prime Minister Starmer is Ready to Put British Troops in Ukraine

Problem: They only have 73,000 Army Troops

By Chuck Warren

The "Telegraph" reported that British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced he was “ready and willing” to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine to enforce any peace deal. The Prime Minister said he had "not taken the decision to consider putting British servicemen and women “in harm’s way” lightly."

They would be part of a European-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine.

President Trump and the American public oppose putting U.S. troops on the ground. Truly Europe needs to step up and take a majority of the burden. While our NATO allies may feel this is a betrayal, there was some interesting information that only reinforces President Trump's decision of no troops and less involvement.

First, the Telegraph reported:

"Exactly what a European-led peacekeeping force in Ukraine would look like remains unclear. The Telegraph understands that one proposal to be discussed is for European soldiers to be deployed away from the front line that would be established in a peace agreement.

Ukrainians would be deployed at the newly established border, and soldiers from other European nations would be behind them.

But whether European allies would be willing to provide enough troops to make such a peacekeeping force effective remains to be seen. Some estimates have suggested that 100,000 soldiers would be needed.

In his Telegraph article, the Prime Minister wrote: “These crucial days ahead will determine the future security of our continent. As I will say in Paris, peace comes through strength. But the reverse is also true. Weakness leads to war."

Question: How confident is anyone that Europe can really put together 100,000 soldiers as a peacekeeping force in Ukraine?

Second, see the following graph.

The Telegraph continued that it "understands the Prime Minister is resisting private calls from military chiefs to go beyond the 2.5 per cent GDP defence spending target. Spending is currently at 2.3 per cent. Furthermore, the British soldier count has been falling. Last spring, the number of Army troops dropped below 73,000 for the first time since the Napoleonic era."

So the impotent Starmer, with a 23% approval rating, is "resisting private calls from military chiefs to go beyond 2.5 percent GDP" for defense spending. Now he has decided to become Churchillian. In the Western United States, we call that "all hat no cattle." Talk is cheap and having a once major power Army troops drop below 73,000 for the first time since the Napoleonic era is a disgrace and ill prepared for the threats the Western world faces now.

So the question dear reader is: If the United States committed troops for a peacekeeping force, does anyone feel our European allies have the bandwidth, financial commitment and wherewithal to uphold their end of the bargain? The United Kingdom is not the only one in this precarious state.

What a disaster Europe has become as a national security partner. Sadly, Trump's tough love approach is becoming more and more apparent the only way to force them to step up to their responsibilities.

Note: the opinions expressed herein are those of Chuck Warren only and not his co-host Sam Stone or Breaking Battlegrounds’ staff.