IS IT in Britain’s interests to be neutral on the Ukraine/Russia war?
This is not a question you’ll see posed in the MSM but it is surely one that should have been addressed by them as well as in Parliament before the Government was allowed to commit so much taxpayers’ money and so many resources to it.
Once again we see the cost-benefits of policy left unaddressed and undebated while the government’s commitment remains entirely open-ended. The collateral costs of the UK’s commitment to supporting, some would say ratcheting up, this war of attrition thus far has neither been calculated on a national or international basis, yet they are mounting every day.
We have been committed to providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance to Ukraine, as well as to imposing additional sanctions on Russia and Belarus which look to be hurting us as much if not more than Russia, as discussed elsewhere on these pages today.
At the G7 Summit this weekend Mr Johnson shook the magic money tree again and promised even more money, confirming that HMG is ‘ready to guarantee another half a billion dollars in loans to the Ukrainian Government, bringing total UK economic and humanitarian support to over £1.5bn’. An independent funding tracker however calculated a total of £2.8billion in humanitarian aid and grants alone, had been committed by June 7th, money we can ill afford with energy prices set to rise by a further 40 per cent this autumn. If that were not enough, the same government press release adds that the ‘UK stands ready to provide another $525 million (or £429 million) in guarantees for World Bank lending later this year.’
Johnson assured other G7 leaders who ‘could become swayed by calls for Kyiv to cede territory to Russia in exchange for peace’ that the financial cost of providing longstanding support to Ukraine was ‘a price worth paying for democracy and freedom’.
A good soundbite, certainly; one perhaps that he calculates will secure his continued tenancy of Number Ten.
But apart from for Mr Johnson himself, who benefits from this mammoth investment for which he has no mandate? Anyone? Or does it just add more fuel to the fire of our economic immolation and to unending war on the continent? And can he seriously argue that Ukraine is the bastion of freedom and democracy or the hill on which we should die defending these principles? Any objective assessment shows it is not.
An article by Keep Britain Free, which you can read here, argues that our role should be peacemaker, not warmonger, and moreover that it will not be until the Government switches policy that we see our fuel and food bills coming down.
Those who believe that the conflict in Ukraine is not our business and our that efforts would be best served in reaching a peaceful agreement should sign Anthony Webber’s petition and let their MPs know they aren’t happy with the Government giving such active and costly support to this war without the people’s consent.
Please feel free to discuss this or anything else on your mind.