https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/uk-premi...ne/4030717
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham said Tuesday that the UK would continue to “support Ukraine 100%” after Russia warned of “consequences” following confirmation that British-made drones were used in recent Ukrainian strikes inside Russia.
Speaking to journalists during a visit to Wolverhampton, Burnham said the UK was providing support to help Ukraine defend itself, adding that successive British governments had maintained the same position throughout the conflict.
“This is the UK doing what it has long said it would do, which is to support Ukraine 100% against this illegal war led by (Russian President) Vladimir Putin,” he said.
Burnham added: “We are not fair-weather friends. We will be there in Ukraine’s hour of need, and that won’t change.”
His remarks came after Russia’s Embassy in the UK on Monday accused Britain of “deliberately opting for an escalation of the Ukraine crisis.”
“The deeper its involvement in the conflict and the greater its support for Kyiv’s terrorist machinery, the higher the price it will pay,” the embassy added.
Earlier, a UK Defense Ministry spokesperson said: “Russia should be in no doubt about the resolve of this government to stand against Russian aggression, in Ukraine and against the UK and our allies.”
(Yesterday 12:14 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Burnham added: “We are not fair-weather friends. We will be there in Ukraine’s hour of need, and that won’t change.”
Unless it involves any British troops on the ground during wartime. But more taxpayer money is basically free, right?
(Yesterday 12:51 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ] (Yesterday 12:14 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Burnham added: “We are not fair-weather friends. We will be there in Ukraine’s hour of need, and that won’t change.”
Unless it involves any British troops on the ground during wartime. But more taxpayer money is basically free, right?
Only time will tell Syne.
It's a proactive approach rather than having an interceptor missile stockpile wasted on a vanity project.
Well, you'd probably be singing another tune if hostile nukes could reach you. But if other EU countries could have been reached, f 'em, right?
(Yesterday 04:06 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Well, you'd probably be singing another tune if hostile nukes could reach you. But if other EU countries could have been reached, f 'em, right?
Hostile nukes can reach us, it's one of the main reasons that the US had early warning systems installed (which birthed the internet, skynet etc) and interceptors here. Not to protect the UK but to make sure such missiles didn't get to the US.
So I guess that's the reason why you sing the tune you do.
As for EU countries. As bad as the likes of Farage are for EU diplomacy, I'm pretty sure the majority of the country would seem defending Europe as necessary as ourselves or the sovereignty of Ukraine. It's only those that live in a communistic fantasy world that would think otherwise.
Iran can't reach the US. But if defending the EU is important to the UK, you'd think they'd take the possibility of Iran getting nuclear weapons more seriously. Maybe just terminally short-sighted.
(Yesterday 06:19 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Iran can't reach the US. But if defending the EU is important to the UK, you'd think they'd take the possibility of Iran getting nuclear weapons more seriously. Maybe just terminally short-sighted.
When it comes to Iran, its Israel that has the concern not the UK or the EU (although the US would likely be concerned too if they created something similar to a cuban missile crisis).
The current rhetoric is consistent with how Iraq supposedly had "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and yet none were ever found.
So there was never any threat from Iran toward the West, now or in the foreseeable future. 9_9
All the enrichment of uranium well beyond any civilian use was of no concern.
Tensions between Iran and Europe have escalated significantly, marked by covert operations, proxy warfare, and recent military friction. While European nations historically favored diplomatic engagement, Iran's actions—including security threats, attacks on regional assets, and assessments of Western military infrastructure—have driven a deep and increasingly hostile divide.
- gemini
(5 hours ago)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]So there was never any threat from Iran toward the West, now or in the foreseeable future. 9_9
All the enrichment of uranium well beyond any civilian use was of no concern.
Tensions between Iran and Europe have escalated significantly, marked by covert operations, proxy warfare, and recent military friction. While European nations historically favored diplomatic engagement, Iran's actions—including security threats, attacks on regional assets, and assessments of Western military infrastructure—have driven a deep and increasingly hostile divide.
- gemini
I wouldn't suggest using a chatbot as evidence of intelligence. If anything it just proves how counter-intelligence is represented. If you are taking such things as fact, then you really have drunk the kool-aid... oh yeah!.
See how you ignored what I actually said just because you could deflect about AI? @_@
And you didn't even offer any rebuttal of the AI quote, which would make your entire post nothing but a genetic fallacy.
Ironic that you chose to talk about intelligence.