Russian President Vladimir Putin would break any peace agreement with Ukraine if it lacked strong security guarantees, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has warned following a high-level military meeting in London. He stressed that any ceasefire deal would only be sustainable if backed by solid security arrangements to deter Russian aggression.

 

Speaking at the Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood, London, where over 20 countries convened for a confidential discussion on military support for Ukraine, Sir Keir underscored the necessity of military preparedness. He emphasized that the international community must move from "political momentum" to "military planning," stating, "It is vitally important we do that work because we know one thing for certain, which is a deal without anything behind it is something that Putin will breach. We know that because it happened before. I'm absolutely clear in my mind it will happen again."

 

 

The UK prime minister made it clear that while support for Ukraine is crucial, British troops currently stationed in other countries, such as Estonia, would not be withdrawn to aid Kyiv. "There's no pulling back from our commitments to other countries," he affirmed.

 

UK Defence Secretary John Healey was also present at the closed-door session, which involved military leaders from what Sir Keir has termed the "coalition of the willing." Downing Street indicated that these officials were engaged in "granular planning" regarding potential troop deployments, though the precise details remain under discussion. The UK initiated the meeting following a summit attended by 26 nations earlier this month.

 

Military and diplomatic sources have suggested that any proposed troop presence should be framed as a "reassurance force" rather than a "peacekeeping force." Meanwhile, Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard clarified that discussions were still in the early stages, stating, "We're not yet talking about numbers because we're still designing the shape of the force." He provided an example, explaining, "If one nation offers fast jet combat air, like a Typhoon aircraft for instance, how will the other nations work alongside it? Where will it refuel? How will it operate with other nations' capabilities?" His remarks underscored the complexity of coordinating multinational military efforts.

 

Earlier in the day, Sir Keir visited the Port of Barrow in Cumbria, the site where the UK's nuclear submarines are built. He told reporters that the discussions in London focused on ensuring Ukraine's security across land, sea, and air. "We are looking at how to keep the skies, and the seas, and the borders safe in Ukraine," he said.

 

As these talks unfold, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has urged Russia to cease its "unnecessary demands that only prolong the war." Speaking in Norway, he reinforced Ukraine's commitment to a peaceful resolution but stressed that Russia's stance remains a major obstacle. Additionally, he announced that Ukrainian officials would meet with their US counterparts in Saudi Arabia on Monday, coinciding with confirmed US-Russia discussions scheduled for the same day.

 

These developments occur as the US continues efforts to negotiate a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine after more than three years of conflict. Both Zelensky and Putin have agreed to a truce in principle during talks with US representatives, but disagreements over key conditions have so far prevented a formal agreement from taking shape.

 

Based on a report by BBC  2025-03-21

 

 

At the end of the day all these Leaders on both sides will have to put boots on the ground, my feeling is neither sides youth have the stomach for it, they are not the uneducated peasants of the last 2 WW's, they are educated netizens of the 21st century and will not answer the call of these warmongering old fools.

Anybody who considers this a good idea should think on, it will ultimately end up with the end of humanity as we know it, atomic weapons of today are hand grenades compared to the 2 dropped on Japan last century.

54 minutes ago, Social Media said:

Vladimir Putin would break any peace agreement with Ukraine if it lacked strong security guarantees

Putin would break a peace agreement REGARDLESS if a security guarantee was in place.

You can't trust him as far as you can throw him......

 

On 3/21/2025 at 10:44 AM, Social Media said:

The UK prime minister made it clear that while support for Ukraine is crucial, British troops currently stationed in other countries, such as Estonia, would not be withdrawn to aid Kyiv. "There's no pulling back from our commitments to other countries," he affirmed.

Sooooo, there needs to be a strong deterrent force, but Britain won't be in it. 

 

An inconsequential man opens his mouth and words of no consequence come out.

On 3/21/2025 at 11:44 AM, flyingtlger said:

Putin would break a peace agreement REGARDLESS if a security guarantee was in place.

You can't trust him as far as you can throw him......

 

Ask the Cossacks if Britain can be trusted, .

On 3/21/2025 at 11:12 AM, Jeff the Chef said:

atomic weapons of today are hand grenades compared to the 2 dropped on Japan last century.

Shouldn't that be the other way around?

On 3/21/2025 at 10:44 AM, Social Media said:

Military and diplomatic sources have suggested that any proposed troop presence should be framed as a "reassurance force" rather than a "peacekeeping force."

LOL.

On 3/21/2025 at 10:44 AM, Social Media said:

"If one nation offers fast jet combat air, like a Typhoon aircraft for instance, how will the other nations work alongside it? Where will it refuel? How will it operate with other nations' capabilities?" His remarks underscored the complexity of coordinating multinational military efforts.

Sooooo, what has NATO been doing all this time, if basic questions like that are being asked now?

Just like Yada says Putin is a thug

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Shouldn't that be the other way around?

 

Yes, but you get my drift?

With their talk, the UK should send in their soldiers.  But who?  They use to have a well respected military now service members are at all time lows less then 200,000 the lowest since Napoleon.  Big talk, but minimal commitment from citizens. What an embarrassing joke.

I would trust Putin more than I trust Starmer.

 

Putin lies to foreigners to protect Russia.

 

Starmer lies to the British to protect foreign interests. An evil man. An enemy of Britain.

Stamer is a <deleted> that only got in with 34% of the vote, he should not be taken seriously

Putin is more trustworthy than Starmer, Johnson and the entire lower house put together.  

 

It is not for nothing they call it perfidious Albion.

30 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I would trust Putin more than I trust Starmer.

 

Putin lies to foreigners to protect Russia.

 

Starmer lies to the British to protect foreign interests. An evil man. An enemy of Britain.

 

Pure hyperbolic nonsense.

 

Where has Starmer lied to protect foreign interests? What actions has he taken that could be considered evil? How is he an enemy of Britain?

 

(I'll preempt your response about the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance killing thousands of pensioners (it hasn't). Some individuals have, no doubt, suffered hardship but by that criterion you could cite certain actions taken by any government and classify them as evil). 

44 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Stamer is a <deleted> that only got in with 34% of the vote, he should not be taken seriously

 

It's hardly Starmer's fault that he became PM as a result of an undemocratic electoral system.

 

The UK's PM might not be a major player on the international scene, but domestically it's the top position so I'd say that Starmer needs to be taken seriously (in the UK at least).

55 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I would trust Putin more than I trust Starmer.

 

Putin lies to foreigners to protect Russia.

Why would anyone say something so obscenely dumb on a public forum? Is that all you think Putin does?

17 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Putin is more trustworthy than Starmer, Johnson and the entire lower house put together.  

So Starmer, Johnson and the and the entire lower house put together are worse than someone who:
1. Commits war crime of unlawful deportation and transfer of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to Russia.

2. Commits Indiscriminate Attacks on Civilians and Infrastructure

3. Kills and Executes his opponents.

blah blah blah.... the list goes on but is wasted on numbskulls.

47 minutes ago, WorriedNoodle said:

So Starmer, Johnson and the and the entire lower house put together are worse than someone who:
1. Commits war crime of unlawful deportation and transfer of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to Russia.

2. Commits Indiscriminate Attacks on Civilians and Infrastructure

3. Kills and Executes his opponents.

blah blah blah.... the list goes on but is wasted on numbskulls.

 

Putin did not do 1 or 2. Okay, he killed some opponents, but so did Obama, Bush, Thatcher and pretty much every leader.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Putin did not do 1 or 2. Okay, he killed some opponents, but so did Obama, Bush, Thatcher and pretty much every leader.

 

Just because you can write this on here does not make it true unless you have some evidence, I won't hold my breath.

14 hours ago, Jeff the Chef said:

 

Yes, but you get my drift?

I knew what you meant to say.

13 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

With their talk, the UK should send in their soldiers.  But who?  They use to have a well respected military now service members are at all time lows less then 200,000 the lowest since Napoleon.  Big talk, but minimal commitment from citizens. What an embarrassing joke.

Why join the military and suffer abuse and poor conditions when one can go on the dole? I lasted over a decade, but in the end the abuse got to me and I resigned. Never regretted it, as I was starting to hate being in it. Got taken over by a bunch of losers and bullies.

8 hours ago, WorriedNoodle said:

So Starmer, Johnson and the and the entire lower house put together are worse than someone who:
1. Commits war crime of unlawful deportation and transfer of children from occupied areas of Ukraine to Russia.

2. Commits Indiscriminate Attacks on Civilians and Infrastructure

3. Kills and Executes his opponents.

blah blah blah.... the list goes on but is wasted on numbskulls.

Deflection. He said nothing about being better than the British shower, and IMO Starmer et al are no better than Putin by encouraging other people to die, instead of having the balls to send British troops.

 

None of that list addresses his trustworthiness- does he do what he says he is going to do, or is he just a lying <deleted> like Starmer?

10 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I would trust Putin more than I trust Starmer.

Where do you sit on the Pope vs Hitler?

53 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

None of that list addresses his trustworthiness- does he do what he says he is going to do, or is he just a lying <deleted> like Starmer?

As a beach-lover, you've been out in the sun too long if you think a wanted war crim is trustworthy.

3 minutes ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

As a beach-lover, you've been out in the sun too long if you think a wanted war crim is trustworthy.

Congratulations on a post that completely avoids what I said to make a silly remark about sunstroke.

On 3/23/2025 at 7:40 PM, Jeff the Chef said:

Just because you can write this on here does

 

No Jeff, it works the other way around, if you claim Putin committed a deportation of children personally, committed a war crime personally, then it's you who has to provide the evidence that Putin did that.

 

 

If you claim there is evidence he personally ordered either, then you no doubt have the evidence for that, the order or something of that kind?

 

Certainly the canard that Putin killed Navalny has been long debunked, even by the CIA and State Department and on record.

 

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No Jeff, it works the other way around, if you claim Putin committed a deportation of children personally, committed a war crime personally, then it's you who has to provide the evidence that Putin did that.

 

 

If you claim there is evidence he personally ordered either, then you no doubt have the evidence for that, the order or something of that kind?

 

Certainly the canard that Putin killed Navalny has been long debunked, even by the CIA and State Department and on record.

 

 

I've never claimed anything about Putin, that wasn't my issue with your post, it was you claiming that Obama, Bush, Thatcher and pretty much every leader killed their opponents without offering a shred of evidence.

4 minutes ago, Jeff the Chef said:

 

I've never claimed anything about Putin, that wasn't my issue with your post, it was you claiming that Obama, Bush, Thatcher and pretty much every leader killed their opponents without offering a shred of evidence.

 

Oh ok, thanks for clarifying. I was referring to Obama's killing of Osama Ben Laden which he famously watched on TV live.

Bush also sent out killing squads and famously favoured torture.

 

Thatcher sent the UKCF, the Commando forces, into the Falklands.

 

Like I said, the very vast majority of political leaders are murderers.

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Oh ok, thanks for clarifying. I was referring to Obama's killing of Osama Ben Laden which he famously watched on TV live.

Bush also sent out killing squads and famously favoured torture.

 

Thatcher sent the UKCF, the Commando forces, into the Falklands.

 

Like I said, the very vast majority of political leaders are murderers.

 

Ok, because you have been called out on your statement you now try and justify it with a load of poppycock.

 

Obama went after and killed a known perpetrator of the 7 /11 act of terror against the USA. The US government has asserted that by killing Osama bin Laden on 1 May 2011, justice
has been done. Its view is that the killing was clearly lawful.

 

Bush along with Blair should have been convicted for crimes against humanity with their invasion of Iraq. The UN Security Council did not authorize the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan later stated that the invasion was "illegal" and not in conformity with the UN Charter. 

 

Thatcher declared war on Argentina because they invaded British dependent territories in the South Atlantic. There was a predictably a level of outrage. As Britain readied its task force the rest of the world reacted to the invasion with shock. The UN issued Resolution 502 calling for an immediate withdrawal of Argentine forces. 10 weeks later and it was done.