British troops would fight back against Russia if attacked in Ukraine
The UK, along with France and Germany, is spearheading a 'coalition of the willing' made up of dozens of nations, which is planning to deploy a peacekeeping force to Ukraine following a potential cessation of hostilities.
John Healey has said 'any British forces have the right to defend themselves, if attacked'.
Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, announced in February this year that he was 'ready and willing' to put British troops on the ground in Ukraine to maintain peace.
But major questions remain unanswered about the precise role UK military personnel could play and how they would respond to Russia potentially breaching the terms of a deal.
Mr Healey was asked during an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Friday what in practical terms the Government meant when it said Britain would help to guarantee peace in Ukraine.
The Cabinet minister said: 'It means that we, as the Prime Minister has said, in the circumstances of a ceasefire we are ready to put UK boots on the ground in Ukraine.
'That is, in part, to reassure Ukrainians but it is also in part to secure the safe skies, safe seas and to build the strength of the
Ukrainian forces.
'Because in the end the best, the strongest deterrent against Russia re-invading or regrouping and relaunching their aggression against Ukraine is the strength of Ukraine to stand for itself, to defeat and deter and to defend itself.'
Mr Healey was asked directly if British troops in Ukraine would stand and fight or leave if they were attacked by Russia.
He replied: 'Those are hypotheticals I am really not going to discuss and can't discuss at this point. But there are a couple of important principles.
'First of all, that any British forces have the right to defend themselves, if attacked.'
The Coalition of the Willing has set out three main priorities for a potential peacekeeping force.
It would seek to regenerate Ukraine's land forces by providing Kyiv with logistic, armament and training experts, secure Ukraine's skies using Coalition aircraft and to support safer seas by helping with the clearing of mines.
Sir Keir co-chaired a virtual meeting of the Coalition earlier this week, along with Emmanuel Macron, the French president, and Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor.
The meeting took place just days before Donald Trump's summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska.
A statement from the Coalition leaders said that they 'welcomed president Trump's efforts to stop the killing in Ukraine, end Russia's war of aggression, and achieve just and lasting peace'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
New Air Force policy denies transgender troops hearings before they're discharged
The Air Force says in a new memo that transgender airmen ousted under a recent Trump administration directive will no longer have the chance to argue before a board of their peers for the right to continue serving their country. The memo dated Tuesday says military separation boards cannot independently decide whether to keep or discharge transgender airmen and instead 'must recommend separation of the member' if the airman has a diagnosis of gender dysphoria — when a person's biological sex does not match up with their gender identity. Military legal experts who have been advising transgender troops told The Associated Press that the new policy is unlawful, and while they were not aware of the other services releasing similar memos, they fear it could serve as a blueprint across the military. Advocacy groups say the change threatens to weaken trust in the military's leadership. It is the second policy change the Air Force has taken in recent weeks to crack down on transgender service members. The Associated Press reported last week that the Air Force would deny transgender troops early retirement benefits and was moving to revoke requests already approved. The Air Force declined to answer questions about the policy and its legal implications. The service provided a statement saying the new guidance 'is consistent with and responsive to Department of Defense policy regarding Service members with a diagnosis of, or history of, or exhibiting symptoms consistent with, gender dysphoria.' How the boards usually work The boards traditionally offer a quasi-legal hearing to determine if a service member set to depart is still of value to the military and should stay on. Fellow service members hear evidence of whatever wrongdoing occurred and about the person's character, fitness and performance. The hearings are not a formal court, but they have much the same structure. Service members are often represented by lawyers, they can present evidence in their defense and they can appeal the board's findings to federal court. The Pentagon's policy on separating officers notes that they are entitled to 'fair and impartial' hearings that should be 'a forum for the officer concerned to present reasons the contemplated action should not be taken.' This impartial nature means that the boards can sometimes reach surprising conclusions. For example, the three active-duty Marines who were part of the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, were retained. The commanding officer of the USS McCain, a destroyer that collided with an oil tanker in the Pacific in 2017, killing 10, was not recommended for separation in 2019. Military lawyers decry the Air Force change Priya Rashid, a military lawyer who has represented service members before hundreds of separation boards, said she 'has never seen an order like this.' 'I've seen people with three DUIs retained, I've seen people that beat their wives retained, I've seen all kinds of people retained because the board is empowered to retain anyone for any reason if they feel it's in the best interest of the service,' she said. Rashid said she and other lawyers working with transgender troops view the guidance as telling the boards to automatically order separation based solely on a diagnosis or symptoms of gender dysphoria. She said that constitutes an unlawful command by the Air Force and upends impartiality. 'This instruction is essentially saying you will not make a determination of whether somebody has future potential in the service,' Rashid said. The new Air Force guidance also prohibits recording the proceedings. Rashid said the lack of an independent transcript would not only prevent Air Force leaders from reviewing the hearings to ensure they were conducted appropriately but would undercut any meaningful chance to appeal. Stepped-up efforts to oust transgender troops Pentagon officials say 4,240 troops have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which the military is using as an identifier of being transgender. The Pentagon got the green light from Supreme Court in May to move forward with a ban on all transgender troops. It offered two options: volunteer to leave and take a one-time separation payout or be discharged at a later date without pay. Some transgender troops decided to fight to stay by turning to the boards. Senior Master Sgt. Jamie Hash, who has served in the Air Force since 2011, said she 'wanted to face an objective board to be evaluated on my years of proven capability.' 'I wanted the board to see the assignments overseas and at the Pentagon, the deployments to different Combatant Commands, the service medals and the sustained operational and mission effectiveness,' she said in an interview. But now, she said, that 'the path ahead feels more uncertain than it ever has.' Logan Ireland, a master sergeant in the Air Force with 15 years of service that includes a deployment to Afghanistan, was planning to retire early until his request was denied last week. After that, he decided he would take a stand at the separation board. 'I chose the involuntary route because I believed in the promise of a fair hearing — judged on my service, my record and the facts,' he said. 'Now that promise is being ripped away, replaced with a process designed to decide my fate before I even walk in the room,' he said, adding that 'all I'm asking for is the same fairness and justice every service member deserves.' Both Ireland and Hash said they have yet to hear from their immediate superiors on what the new policy will mean for them. Lawyers are worried it will set a precedent that will spread throughout the military. Rashid said both the Army and Navy are 'going to look at what the Air Force is doing as a standard of law … is this the minimum standard of law that we will afford our service members.' Transgender troops warn the policy could have wider implications Col. Bree Fram, a transgender officer in the Space Force who has long been seen as a leader among transgender troops, argued that the policy is a threat to other service members. In an online post, Fram said it 'swaps judgment for automation.' 'Today it's gender dysphoria; tomorrow it can be any condition or class the politics of the moment calls for,' she argued. If the new policy is allowed to sideline 'evidence of fitness, deployment history, awards, and commander input — the very material boards were built to evaluate,' Fram said, it sends a message that performance is no longer relevant to staying in the military. Cathy Marcello, interim director for Modern Military Association of America, said the change adds to a 'growing loss of trust' because outcomes are determined by politics, not performance. The organization advocates for LGBTQ+ service members, military spouses, veterans, their families and allies. 'It's a signal that identity, not ability or achievement, determines who stays in uniform and who gets a fair shot,' she said.
Times
35 minutes ago
- Times
Why Reform UK should be represented in the House of Lords
Much diminished from the glory days when it fielded prime ministers and vetoed legislation, the House of Lords remains an important part of Britain's democracy. Though still in constitutional limbo while politicians argue over whether it should be reformed or abolished, the Lords, with or without hereditary peers, performs an essential task in scrutinising legislation, raising issues of public concern and tidying up poorly drafted laws. Its strength is that it is increasingly non-partisan. Many peers are appointed after a lifetime of public service and sit as crossbenchers. They bring varied experience to the chamber, independent opinions and voting patterns untrammelled by party diktats. True, too many are still appointed as reward for slavish loyalty, as compensation for careers cut short or for filling party coffers. True, some recent appointments have been breathtaking in their frivolity and cynicism. It is true also that there are simply too many peers, with some turning up only for the minimum time to qualify for the daily allowance while their voices remain unheard and their views unknown. However it is finally constituted, the upper chamber, as in other western democracies, should be broadly representative of the nation, its voters and its vital interests. Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, is therefore absolutely right in demanding that his party should be represented. It won 4.1 million votes in the general election, gained many seats in local elections, controls ten councils outright and may do well in future elections. The Greens, the Democratic Unionist Party, Plaid Cymru and the Ulster Unionists, all winning fewer votes, have 13 peers between them. • Reform peers? We don't need Putin apologists, says John Healey Bizarrely, nomination to the Lords is entirely in the prime minister's gift. There are several serious politicians affiliated to Reform. Sir Keir Starmer should put their names forward straight away.
The Guardian
38 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Labour's attempt to find successor to Diane Abbott ‘under way'
Moves to find a successor to Diane Abbott in the parliamentary seat she has represented since 1987 are under way, prompting concern that her fate has been decided before an investigation into her latest suspension has concluded. Figures on Labour's national executive committee (NEC) have spoken to potential contenders, teeing them up for a future contest in her constituency of Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and giving them informal advice on how to prepare, according to a party source. Abbott was suspended from the party in July for repeating that Jewish people do not experience racism in the same way as Black people, a statement that had earned her a previous suspension in April 2023. Labour said there would be no discussion of potential successor as an investigation was ongoing. The party said there had been no discussions about alternative candidates at any NEC meetings and no proposals put to NEC members about a selection process. Abbott said: 'It does seem to be rather pre-empting the results of the investigation.' One figure on the left of the party said talk of replacing Abbott risked inflaming tensions between the leadership and grassroots members. 'There's no appetite among members for a stitch-up, they would want this to be fair after everything that's happened,' they said. Abbott, who as the longest-serving female MP has the honorary title of mother of the house, lost the Labour whip in autumn 2023 after she wrote a letter to the Observer in which she argued that Jewish, Irish and Traveller people did not experience racism in the same way as Black people and likened their experience to that of people with red hair. Abbott said the letter published was a draft version, and that her comments had been taken out of context. She was readmitted to the party in time to retain her seat at the general election, but was suspended again last month after telling the BBC in an interview that she did not regret the remarks. The Guardian understands that potential successors to Abbott include those who were in the frame to replace before general election, among them the London assembly member Sem Moema and the Hackney councillor Mete Coban. Abbott's latest suspension caused unease among some party insiders, including NEC members, but they said her decision to repeat her original comments, despite previously apologising, made it harder for them to defend her. Labour sources have briefed that Abbott is unlikely to be readmitted to the parliamentary Labour party. It is thought that she plans to stand down at the next election, if not sooner. Sources close to the process said discussions about a potential successor are too important to be left to the last minute. Under party rules, a suspended MP is barred from standing as a candidate until their case is resolved. The NEC has the power to trigger a selection process if a sitting MP is not endorsed to stand again. The row over Abbott's future comes as Labour prepares for its autumn conference. The disciplinary process over Abbott's original Observer letter became one of the longest and most prominent internal rows of Keir Starmer's leadership. Allies accused party leaders of deliberately dragging their feet to prevent her re-selection, while Labour HQ insisted the investigation was handled according to the rules. The seat is regarded as ultra-safe for Labour, even although her majority last year was halved to 15,000 last year amid a challenge from the Greens.
