Yes, the Tories have been out in full force with the "Well we've had female leaders" line, seemingly under the impression that is a shield from criticism
Maybe Priti Vacant is too big a name for Truss and she thinks she'll backstab her? Wouldn't surprise me if she did.
Yes. I haven't checked if he has or not, but we all know she's not doing any of those things. If Corbyn had simply added that to the end of his suggestions, then it would've been fine. Of course Zelinskiy wants talks. He's outlined what that would consist of, though. He's not suggesting that his country should roll over and allow Putin to take over. Quite the opposite. He's not blaming NATO for Russian aggression or pushing Soviet propaganda. Stop The War aren't fit for purpose. This sort of bullshit is embarrassingly naive: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/09/05/peace-talks-essential-war-rages-ukraine Putin wants to restore the Soviet Union as some sort of Greater Russia. He's said it himself. Giving up land to him just encourages his shameless behaviour. Corbyn's ideas about a lot of things in the UK are fine. Admirable, even. His view of foreign policy is utterly ****ing mental, though. He's stuck in the past. Worse than that, he's stuck in some utopian communist fantasy that didn't exist in the first place.
You must not criticise ze Fuhrer! Him approving of Kuntburger says it all, doesn't it? She's blatantly in their pocket. What does SW1 have to do with anything, either?
And that's the point: you didn't check if Miliband said it, but Corbyn saying it gets posted here to say "Look at this eejit asking for lower energy bills, as if anybody wants those" - which, the last time I checked, everyone who isn't a shareholder at an energy firm wants those Corbyn didn't suggest Ukraine roll over, he said that talks were the way forward and not guns, gun and more guns - which Zelinskiy also said, and has also been patently obvious once the entire war turned into a meatgrinder because when a war gets to that state it's likely going to continue like that for years, as the Soviet-Afghan war demonstrated, making talks necessary because neither side has an advantage to make demands of the other If anything, Tory foreign policy is stuck in the past as that mainly consists of rattling sabres in the direction of Scotland and France like it's still the 17th century, or shipping people to the other side of the world like the 19th century, and those are both mental and also more than a little illegal
You need guns to get talks. Without the guns Ukraine would already be part of Russia. Miliband did comment about Truss, as it turns out. Can't disagree with it, either:
You don't need guns to get talks, though: you need manpower to get talks, because what's the use of sending (for the sake of argument) 10,000 guns to an army of 50,000? That's 40,000 people you aren't arming, and that's before taking into account training or merely the resources to keep those people fighting such as medical supplies, food and water, or even the infrastructure to get those supplies to the front lines. This, coincidentally, is where Putin shot himself in the foot with both barrels as the Russian supply lines are hardly anything to write home about, which is why Ukrainian tactics are regularly targeting Russian ammo dumps And the thing is, that is the best way to beat Russians due to the Russian psyche being a peculiar blend of wanting to project power like various Western powers yet also their need to save face like various Far Eastern nations, because mowing down their troops like it was going out of fashion doesn't make them come to the table - but slapping them in the face repeatedly with the fact they have ****ed up is going to get them to the table because that gives them a way to save face in negotiations In other words, Putin is remarkably similar to the service at the Malacca branch of Pizza Hut where my order still hasn't arrived 25 years later...
You're saying that like they were only sent guns. They were sent everything that they needed, which appeared to have the desired effect. There was no way that they were coming to the negotiation table without that. Why would they? Having a merry, unopposed stroll across Ukraine wouldn't lead to talks.
"Everything they needed" implies more than guns, does it not? Also, as I outlined last time this came up, there's some really baffling terms to the US's pledge of infrastructure funding as it needs to be spent by (IIRC) mid-2024, which implies that the US expect the whole thing to be done and dusted by then - which is hardly a guarantee, considering the meatgrinder nature of the conflict - and also demonstrates the US's plan is to chuck money at the problem and leave you to it, a plan which worked marvellously in the Middle East for the past twenty years
Everything they needed meant just that. Supplies and armaments. How long the US maintains this position remains to be seen. The alternative isn't something that many people are welcoming. I'm sure the arms manufacturers appreciate the comprehensive demonstrations, too.
Why has the pound fallen on Truss' arrival? https://www.itv.com/news/2022-09-05/why-has-the-pound-fallen-on-trusss-arrival That's a genuine article by Robert Peston, a Tory fellator. It's because she's **** and they know it, Bob. You know it, too.
