The agreement was for Nuclear disarmament not de-militarisation. Just meant the Nuke warheads were removed (wouldn't mind hazarding a wager on which country took them off their hands) Again another opinion I'm forming which will be unpopular on here is I've been very very surprised at the apparent lack of residential destruction and casualties so far. The whole thing appears to be fairly clean so far. I may be wrong I've seen the odd damaged building and that twat in the tank drive over the old blokes car but on the whole it seems to have been strategic.
I've not watched much of the TV coverage, but even in the last 15 minutes I have seen a fair few civilian vehicles on fire and damaged residential buildings.
I think the sanctions should have been far harsher. I think we should have been stood shoulder to shoulder with the Ukraine. My issues are not with Ukraine. My issues are mainly with the reporting on this from the western press and especially the American driven press. Its always too pro west to protect and increase their own interests. I do however try to work out both sides of a story rather than just be spoon fed liquid ****e from BBC and Fox News.
There is no good guys in any of this. There is fault on every side. Whichever dickhead's came up with the resolutions of the second world war have created a massive **** burger for generations to come in all parts of the world.
I'm probably just in a pissy mood as CNN have had nowhere near enough Julia Chatterley reporting on this
Poo tin wouldn't have done it with Trump in power, Trump would be all over this like a cheap coat (rightly so tbf), instead, president of the most powerful country in the world should be in a care home
In that case I agree with you. The sanctions imposed worldwide have been far too weak, and the sanctions imposed by the UK are embarrassing compared to even those. It's like they aren't even trying to hide the corruption of protecting Russian companies with Tory peers sitting on their boards or individuals who have made donations to political parties. I think its easy to criticise the media though. I have read plenty of articles (Including on the BBC website) explaining things from the Russian point of view and giving food for thought. Personally, I think the west has betrayed Ukraine. We made promises when we wanted something and fell short when there was a cost to us - whether financial or in terms of military action.
I agree 100% with all of that - other than the press - Murdoch is the world's biggest **** that is in a league of his own.
Trump wouldn't have done anything. He has already come out and praised Putin for invading and saying it was a wonderful thing!!!
I try not to watch or read anything produced by Murdoch. I also don't watch CNN either. It was ok about 20 years ago but doesn't give any balance anymore (and I come from the left side of politics).
Linky? And it's obviously different from the touchline. You think this would still have happened with Trump as president?
I've just read what he said..... Basically how Putin was a genius and wonderful for declaring that large parts of Ukraine were independent and therefore he set his troops in as peacekeepers. Well in that case I think the UK should just declare the US Eastern Seaboard as independent and that they want us to regain control for historical reasons. They can keep LA and all that ****e for holidaying in.
Trying to show a selection of links so you don't think its a media bias thing. It's been reported extensively by publications on every side of the debate. https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-...s-aggression-as-wonderful-and-genius-12549418 https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...oved-reagans-evil-empire-trumps-praise-putin/ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/world/europe/trump-putin-russia-ukraine.html (Paid content so haven't read it) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ump-news-today-putin-russia-gop-b2022977.html
I honestly believe Trump was in Putin's pocket, so no, I don't think Putin would have needed to do it with Trump in charge as he felt no threat.
