Lol. Our entire nuclear deterrent is reliant on the USA. Intelligence sharing is the least of our worries if you honestly believe we can’t trust Trump (we can btw) This is just pure noise that you should ignore tbh.
My point is; The situation is extremely complex. More complex than people are making out. The entire situation that led up to Putin invading was avoidable, and NATO/EU are not being honest with the population about their heavy involvement in causing Putin to feel threatened enough that he did this. America and NATO largely poked the bear in this situation, and now they’re pretending that they didn’t; and that somehow they have no responsibility at all for the mess. It’s infuriating to watch people calling for endless bloodshed and supporting ever more dangerous courses of action without knowing the full geopolitical context. I know that I’ll get called a dumb Putin sympathiser or something for this post, as usual, but the in my opinion the truth is the truth. This was an avoidable conflict yet NATO & the US did nothing to avoid it and if anything actively encouraged it with their heavy involvement. Now we are on the precipice of British lives being at stake for something which could have been avoided with diplomacy. Personally I would not be willing to risk ramping up tensions any more than they already are for Ukraine. I think it’s absurd that it’s even gotten this far. To suggest British troops on the ground is absolutely insane, even as a peacekeeping force. One stray bullet to a British soldier and then nukes are on the table for real. It’s just a ridiculous suggestion
Unfortunately evil politicians commit atrocities every single day around the globe. There are bombings every single day and I am against all of them. I truly, do not understand how politicians can authorise such horrors. No bomb that is dropped could ever be valid in my mind; except those used purely in defence. However I am fortunate in that none of them really affect me or my family directly. But what Keith Starmer and his imbecile buddies are suggesting could directly impact me & my family. I am not willing to fight and die for Ukraine. Therefore I would not be willing to pursue policies which would lead to this outcome for myself or for others. It’s really that simple for me. If you are willing to advocate for these new, more dangerous steps then you should be willing to fight yourself. Otherwise you are being hypocritical. That’s why I said asked loading last night if he is willing to go to the front line. If you are willing to die yourself, then fair play, I respect your opinion more. But if you would honestly not be willing to go there yourself, then you should not be listening to what Starmer is proposing
I'm guessing that you're basing the early part on Jeff Sachs? There is a bit of truth in what he says and a fair amount of clear fiction, but I do agree that there was a degree of poking the bear. An equal or greater degree of Putin being expansionist and wanting a return to Soviet territories. I guess it's double edged with expansionism creating greater wealth and stability in Russia, creating a barrier against the West in the same way as the expansion of NATO does the same thing, but in a less aggressive manner. I'm not sure who is calling for bloodshed. I would say that not standing up to Putin now will mean that Latvia is next, Lithuania will follow etc. Each time it will be an encroachment and rebuild. Appeasement didn't work in the 1930s and won't now. You are completely right that none of us know the full geopolitical context. I don't want British lives lost any more than you do (neither of us want any lives lost wastefully). That said, I think it is an extremely dangerous precedent to force Ukraine to cede its territory and people. It gives the green light to continuing expansionism. Time and time again a transactional approach to negotiation doesn't work in international politics. It is extremely short term and lacks context. It essentially green lights China to talk Taiwan (as a start) etc.
I would step up and be counted but I am a bit too old now. I suppose you are a supporter of the view that these are not war crimes because it is not a war, just a Special Military Operation?
If “the truth is the truth” you wouldn’t get news from Twitter. Look at it this way. Hypothetical situation. You and your mates know a guy called Steve. Steve has 14 kids, and calls them things like Techno Mecanicus, Seldun Lycurgus and X Æ A-Xii. Quite rightly, you and your mates would thing Steve is psychologically unstable, particularly given his fondness for a dab of Ket. You might feel a bit sorry for him, but when he comes to the pub, you sit at a different table. You warn people away from him. Don’t say you wouldn’t, because we all know that’s not true. He’s the village nutter. He needs help. Now imagine if someone then said to you that Steve is going to be given huge responsibility and access to the highest levers of power in the world. You’d rightly say “you have to be ****ing joking. He’s as mad as a spare goose. That’ll be a disaster. It’ll be chaos”. But no, instead of applying real world, real life logic, you’re hailing Steve as a hero. It’s mind boggling, regardless of whether or not Steve has one or two good ideas. The guy thrives on chaos, and what’s worse, he enjoys it because he’s rich enough not to give the first **** about the results. It’s a game to him, and you’ve been drawn in to playing it for him (note, not *with* him). You’re in Steve world.
I believe they are war crimes, for sure. The ‘Special Military Operation’ isn’t fooling anyone. You can’t justify anything he has done. But we just don’t have any power to punish those crimes unfortunately. So at best all we can do is continue to point it out. To which Putin will just laugh and point at the war crimes committed by the US.
What evidence is there that Putin will continue to expand? In my opinion, and based on what I have heard Putin say directly, his main target is Sevastopol due to its strategic position as a port for the Russian navy. If you look at their attack route, the area they are defending and also everything that he has said before and after, I think this is his primary target. I hope it’s all he is after. You may be right of course.
Two wrongs don't make it right. We can't do anything about it so that's all right then, carry on not trying to bring it to an end, is that your solution?
Evidence is only what he has done over time, not just Ukraine, and what he has said about restoring Soviet territories. Neither of us know his real intentions naturally or those of the Chinese state. Either of us may be right here
I've never seen Os claim the Russian invasion is valid or legitimate. There is a discussion to be had about the causes of the war but right now that's not really the point. The point is as follows. Russia is fighting a war in Ukraine. At the moment Russia is gradually winning that war. In order to end the war Russia either has to be defeated or convinced to stop fighting. The problem is how to achieve either of those things. For years the west has been funding Ukraine and sending them weapons but Russia is still gradually winning the war. The major problem for Ukraine, an issue which is continually ignored by those who favour "standing up to Russia", is reported to be a shortage of manpower. While the west is willing to provide weapons and money it's also clear we aren't willing to send troops to fight the Russians. This is the reality that Trump was referring to when he talked about "not having the cards" or whatever it is he said. European leaders can put together whatever peace plan they want. Trump may even agree to adopt it as a negotiating position. But if the Russians point blank refuse to agree to that peace plan what do you do then?
How about the fact he ha said so? How about the fact he now controls parts of Georgia, parts of Ukraine, all of Belarus and has massive power over Serbia? How about the fact he just tried to insert a crony into Romania? But mostly, the fact he has said over and over that the former Soviet Block should never have been given up.
Plenty of historic evdence, why would he need Sevastopol if he didn't have further ambitions? If the US pull out, there would be little to stop him. Can't see even Trump making that mistake.
Sevastopol is the main port in the Crimea, which Putin has had in his possession since 2014. Try again.
A Russian responded to a tweet saying Putin does not want all of Ukraine saying: ukraine is Russia. This is a fact. Why does Europe not understand this? That is the ideology here.
It’s just how things are. We don’t (and shouldn’t) get involved in absolutely every conflict. One persons “right” is another persons “wrong”. Put it this way; Imagine if Russia was sending weapons and money to the IRA and destabilising Ireland for years, interfering in elections and generally causing political chaos there. Imagine if things got so bad there, we felt there was a threat to Britain and that we then had to send British troops back in to stabilise the region. But also imagine instead of an island, Ireland had the rest of Russia and its global military alliances behind it, which made the situation even more tense and complex. That is me ‘straw manning’ Putin’s position. He sees the west have been destabilising Ukraine in order to push their own agenda in the region. I’m not saying this justifies his invasion. I’m saying.. it means we need to understand the history accurately. We need to understand his view and not provoke him to do anything even worse. It seems, to me at least, that the western media is trying to propaganda away all the previous history here and to drum up support for us as the “good guys” and ignore everything else. If we are going to endanger British lives, it should be done with all of the facts on the table. We shouldn’t go to war under a cloud of lies like we did in Iraq.
Yep. That's very much the case. I still think Putin comes out of it if he can somehow spin it as a 'win' though. There's only so much meat he can grind before he has to resort to conscription, which he's loath to do. I just hope we don't get to that point.
