Elsewhere he says that the necessary money to support the UK and EU money that has already been put up is stalled in the American Congress and Ukraine needs that money. He says that Speaker Johnson can make it happen. He goes on, "It's American security, it's European security, it's Britain's security that is on the line in Ukraine and they need our help."We are both absolutely clear. Ukraine must win this war. If Ukraine looses, we all loose. The costs of failing to support Ukraine now will be far greater than the costs of repelling Putin. But as discussed in the Paris conference in February, we must do even more to ensure we defeat Russia. The worldis watching - and will judge us if we fail. [..........] It is not for France and Britain to solve these challenges on their own [..........] We can rally others to join us.
I'm currently reading, by coincidence, a book called Metro 2034 bye Dmitry Glukhovsky. It deals with Russian survivors of a devastating nuclear war living in the Moscow metro, eeking out a miserable existence against a backdrop of nuclear winter a hundred times worse than the fabled Russian winters of today. So with all the pictures we have of this in mind, and noting also that Glukhovsky's novel is (presciently?) set just 10 years from now, let's just think about this, about Cameron's words.
He calls it Ukraine's war, but then goes on to say that "We must defeat Russia." In other words, it is really already our war, it's just that we're getting Ukraine to fight it for us. And he doesn't explain why we must defeat Russia, he just loosly implies that if we don't, Russia will make some kind of move westwards, towards us,and then, when sufficiently emboldened, against America itself?
Where is the evidence for this? Cameron does not present anything remotely approaching convincing evidence, that what he is saying is anything more than alarmist rhetoric.
And let's look at what happens if this aid keeps on flowing as Cameron would have it do. Well, certainly those who have investments in the arms industries will have a field day. War in Ukraine has thus far been for them, like all of their Christmases rolled into one. Not so much for the people of Ukraine.
But let's say Cameron gets his wish. So okay, Ukraine has a bit more weaponry with which to stall the creeping advance of the Russians towards the Dnipre. So the war strings out for a bit longer. But even the Secretary General of Nato said a few days ago that at some point, negotiations would have to be initiated. He said that it should be when Russia is all but defeated, so that Ukraine was able to bargain from the maximum possible advantage position, but added that it was ultimately Ukraine's decision as to when such negotiations should begin. (Thus he unthinkingly admitted that Russia would probably be ready to negotiate right now, and that it was Ukraine (ie the West) who were not yet ready to do so.
My suggestion is that you ask the Ukrainian people. The ones who have sacrificed 30,000, 100,000, 500,000 of their people (take your pick) in this carnage of other people's making. My bet is that you'd find that autonomy for the Donbas and Luhansk is something that right now, they might find to be a price worth considering, in order to get this thing back under wraps. But of course Zelensky and his puppet-masters in the West will not consider what the people might want; they are after all, just the cannon-fodder that carries the cost.
So the arms go in, and the situation drags on. Without the boots on the ground, it can't be brought to a successful conclusion, so on it goes, the 'forever war' that like Afghanistan before it, and Iraq, and Syria, just drags on, leeching tax money from the already impoverished people of the UK, Europe and America, getting them more and more pissed at the situation as each day passes. And Russia, with seriously greater armaments capability, keeps inching forward. The only people happy at this point are the beneficiaries of the military-industrial complex, who needless to say, are like pigs in clover.
Sooner or later, the realisation that without additional boots on the ground this is a chicken that won't fight will kick in. At this point, serious decisions will have to be made. Either negotiate and surrender territory, or go down the route that ultimately leads in all probability to Glukhovsky's Metro 2034, with a few million more of the brutal deaths of traditional warfare in between. Once Nato boots, or American boots, or French boots appear on the ground, or jets take off from Polish airfields and bomb targets either in Ukraine or Russia, ot the essentially terrorist attacks on Russia that have been being carried out with increasing frequency of late (until the last one in Moscow) eventually push the Russians into precipitate action in response - then it's game-on followed by game-over in pretty quick succession.
And perhaps with a degree of prescience, Glukhovsky in his book, wrote a short passage on why, in his novel, things had gone that far. Perhaps, he said, two or three generations from the horrors of World War 2, the politicians of the day had no reference to just how bad war actually was. To the actual lived trauma of all out warfare, of nuclear attack. They spoke in casual terms of it - became complacent in their use of language and concept of what it meant, by virtue of their distance from it in time. None of them had been born when it had happened, so they simply didn't understand what it was they were inexorably sliding into.
Glukhovsky's book was written many years ago, but then, they say that art often precedes life in its representations don't they.
