WAR! What is it good for?

[PINKIE]

I think Europe certainly needs to be standing on it's own two feet and not relying on the US so much, hence that means defence spending has got to be increased to a more pratical level.

By us putting troops on the ground we can take America out of the equasion except if we need back up because Russia starts getting heavy with us.

Starmers quite good at this and is sort of acting like a bridge, between Trump the EU and keeping any mention of NATO silent. The latter two matter, because they wind Putin up, so with us in the middle, Putin might be more agreeable, and he don't really see us as a threat even if he did get the hump with our dopey Tory MP's.

Seems a sensible 'peace' solution to me.

It’s clear we’re going to have to spend a lot more on defence, so @Sucky had better start paying his taxes if he wants to defend British values.

 

[brb]

It’s clear we’re going to have to spend a lot more on defence, so @Sucky had better start paying his taxes if he wants to defend British values.

I think now I've heard Starmers speech I'm a bit more relaxed about it, ****ing Zelenskyy just winds me up, I get where Starmer is coming from now. When I first heard UK troops on the ground, I was liking you ****ing what! lol

 

[Milk..]

I think they want to or should do, drop the NATO comments, that is just a trigger to Putin, we need to do it as an individual nation. A country outside of the EU, just a mere part of Europe.

Putin has unfinished business with Ukraine. I think the only thing stopping him going right back and taking more would be if he faced a serious threat of retaliation. There is no guarantee of that unless Ukraine joins one or the other. My opinion is that the only way we have lasting peace in Ukraine is if Ukraine is properly backed by one or the other. He's gone after chunks of Ukraine twice now, and got his ego bruised this time... he'll be back for the rest otherwise.

 

[Milk..]

It’s clear we’re going to have to spend a lot more on defence, so @Sucky had better start paying his taxes if he wants to defend British values.

Sucky going to suggest we deploy all the immigrants to the Eastern Front... permenantly?

 

[brb]

It’s clear we’re going to have to spend a lot more on defence, so @Sucky had better start paying his taxes if he wants to defend British values.

We'll just tell Sucky there's a lot of painting work in Kyiv for him, he just needs a British uniform and gun.

 

[PINKIE]

Putin has unfinished business with Ukraine. I think the only thing stopping him going right back and taking more would be if he faced a serious threat of retaliation. There is no guarantee of that unless Ukraine joins one or the other. My opinion is that the only way we have lasting peace in Ukraine is if Ukraine is properly backed by one or the other. He's gone after chunks of Ukraine twice now, and got his ego bruised this time... he'll be back for the rest otherwise.

This might sound a bit conspiratorial, but the areas in the east of Ukraine that Russia are currently occupying and would likely form part of a ‘deal’ that Russia keep, are also the parts of Ukraine that are most rich in mineral resources.

Could Trump be trying to set up a deal with Putin that allows him to annexe parts of eastern Ukraine in return for US access to those mineral resources ? We know that Trump is after Greenland

 

[PINKIE]

We'll just tell Sucky there's a lot of painting work in Kyiv for him, he just needs a British uniform and gun.

Trump will need painters and decorators when they rebuild Mariupol for Putin.

 

[brb]

Trump will need painters and decorators when they rebuild Mariupol for Putin.

I think Putins already rebuilt it and left the bodies under the rubble.

 

[PINKIE]

I think Putins already rebuilt it and left the bodies under the rubble.

A lick of paint probably wouldn’t go a miss still.

 

[Milk..]

This might sound a bit conspiratorial, but the areas in the east of Ukraine that Russia are currently occupying and would likely form part of a ‘deal’ that Russia keep, are also the parts of Ukraine that are most rich in mineral resources.

Could Trump be trying to set up a deal with Putin that allows him to annexe parts of eastern Ukraine in return for US access to those mineral resources ? We know that Trump is after Greenland

It wouldn't surprise me... of course Greenland isn't just about the minerals, it's an ideal place to put up a missile shield to protect the US, and also be a good place for a military base protecting the NW passage as it continues to open up more. Geographically half way between North America and Europe it's a great buffer location to control. I could be wrong, but suspect he's more interested in it from a defence perspective than a mineral perspective.

Honestly, Britain was supposed to be negotiating all these excellent trade deals post-brexit that never happened; I don't think Britain should take too big of an advantage from Ukraine, but it would be foolish not to ask for favourable trade agreements with Ukraine if placing soldiers there, like, British imports being tax-free. Britain is likely going to be paying a lot to help Ukraine out, so getting a little advantage in the markets would be a nice thank you. It's unlikely going to hurt Ukraine domestically because the types of things they import are not going to be what is made there (labour cheaper there, so anything imported from UK would be things they can't make themselves)... it would just give UK an advantage over other 3rd party nations.

 

[FosseFilberto]

^^^definitely got a “Sportsmanship” award for being the useless spacky kid who turned up every week

Hope that hasn't impacted your 'reputation' on here

 

[PINKIE]

It wouldn't surprise me... of course Greenland isn't just about the minerals, it's an ideal place to put up a missile shield to protect the US, and also be a good place for a military base protecting the NW passage as it continues to open up more. Geographically half way between North America and Europe it's a great buffer location to control. I could be wrong, but suspect he's more interested in it from a defence perspective than a mineral perspective.

Honestly, Britain was supposed to be negotiating all these excellent trade deals post-brexit that never happened; I don't think Britain should take too big of an advantage from Ukraine, but it would be foolish not to ask for favourable trade agreements with Ukraine if placing soldiers there, like, British imports being tax-free. Britain is likely going to be paying a lot to help Ukraine out, so getting a little advantage in the markets would be a nice thank you. It's unlikely going to hurt Ukraine domestically because the types of things they import are not going to be what is made there (labour cheaper there, so anything imported from UK would be things they can't make themselves)... it would just give UK an advantage over other 3rd party nations.

Yep Greenland is strategically important for any future Artic treaties too. And we know that Trump doesn’t care for the agreements in place with Canada, Mexico, Europe, nato ? So why would an Arctic treaty be any different in his eyes.

Greenland is also mineral rich and if Trump is going to make good on his massive tax cuts pledge he’s going to need to raise far more revenue than just what Muskolini can save from firing Federal employees.

Drill baby, drill.

 

[Ivan Dobsky]

I think Europe certainly needs to be standing on it's own two feet and not relying on the US so much, hence that means defence spending has got to be increased to a more pratical level.

By us putting troops on the ground we can take America out of the equasion except if we need back up because Russia starts getting heavy with us.

Starmers quite good at this and is sort of acting like a bridge, between Trump the EU and keeping any mention of NATO silent. The latter two matter, because they wind Putin up, so with us in the middle, Putin might be more agreeable, and he don't really see us as a threat even if he did get the hump with our dopey Tory MP's.

Seems a sensible 'peace' solution to me.

Good points, but I'd like to empathise one main subject that almost everyone seems to have overlooked - the main plank of the UK's 'independent' defence is a £200bn nuclear submarine fleet that, in effect, we cannot maintain without US 'goodwill'. So two things to recognise as we move forward in this brave new world of contradictory US imperialism and isolation at the same time;

1) If we do have to up our defence spending to 3% or 4% of GDP to maintain NATO (and we should), can we spend it within the UK and Europe on building our own planes, submarines, tanks, etc and pump-prime investment and jobs in our own economic zone rather than buying everything from the US? ffs, I think the last thing the Yanks ever bought off us was Harrier jets 50 years ago.

2) We literally cannot trust Donald Trump with our nuclear codes, and I do mean literally. We need to stop sucking on the US teat now for our own sake. But stop buying their stuff, FFS.

 

[Ivan Dobsky]

I think it depends on who attacked NATO and where. If someone who can put up a fight attacked a NATO ally, especially in a contested zone, I don't think Trump would honour his NATO commitments. If someone easily defeated attacked a NATO ally in an undisputed region, I think he would.

I certainly don't think he would be honour-bound to respect international treaties if he thought that the US would pay a real cost for going to war... but if he could get an easy win, he would.

British soldiers bombed by Russia while in Ukraine... no doubt he would blame the British for starting it.

Mate, we've got Uk journalists over here like Peter Hitchens who blame the Ukrainians for being bombed in the Ukraine by Russia, so I've no doubt Donald wouldn't give a stuff if Poland, Finland, Sweden or any other NATO country were bombed by the Russians even in their own country - he just dances to Putin's tune.

 

[duggie2000]

Mate, we've got Uk journalists over here like Peter Hitchens who blame the Ukrainians for being bombed in the Ukraine by Russia, so I've no doubt Donald wouldn't give a stuff if Poland, Finland, Sweden or any other NATO country were bombed by the Russians even in their own country - he just dances to Putin's tune.

I did always wonder who brb really is

 

[Milk..]

I did always wonder who brb really is

@brb , ты правда Путин?

 

[Milk..]

I half suspect that Putin isn't real actually. He's just one of @luvgonzo 's socks.

 

[PINKIE]

 

[brb]

I did always wonder who brb really is

I don't mind helping Ukraine out in the Starmer context, but outside of that it's not our problem, nor should it be. Happy to get involved in a peace deal, most people on here support NATO and the EU, I don't. I'm happy for us to work alongside Europe with the likes of Macron who seems respectful to our PM. I've got no issue with trading with the US either, if people want to play their politics that's up to them, but my lines couldn't be any clearer.

 

[duggie2000]

I don't mind helping Ukraine out in the Starmer context, but outside of that it's not our problem, nor should it be. Happy to get involved in a peace deal, most people on here support NATO and the EU, I don't. I'm happy for us to work alongside Europe with the likes of Macron who seems respectful to our PM. I've got no issue with trading with the US either, if people want to play their politics that's up to them, but my lines couldn't be any clearer.

In an ideal world without extreme politics we would be part of a United Europe, NOT a federal one which should really include Russia (and Greenland)