The reason prices have increased is because a number of reasons… pandemic, fuel prices, weather. Plenty of World economies are seeing price rises which has nothing to do with Brexit. It’s a good excuse for a few remain fanatics but not for us normal folk.
You’ve once again avoided the very simple question of whether or not Brexit has helped drive prices up. Brexit won’t suddenly not happen if you admit what a ****show it is.
A ridiculous response from you Ellers. I clearly was referring to the West's Current Disunified RESPONSE to the situation in and around Ukraine, not to the original Causes of the conflict.
And the EU were unified before? You need to have a read up fella on the history of the EU. There is a good article on Switzerland doing the rounds at the moment. Have a read.
Haven't had time to read this cover to cover, Cologne, but it seems to confirm there was no formal agreement re NATO's expansion eastwards. Just a declaration of intent, which I'd say has been kept. Bear in mind, this was 32 years ago, and since then, Putin has taken power and invaded Georgia and Crimea. So all bets are off. Bottom line is, NATO is a defensive alliance which has maintained peace in Europe during the Cold War. It is consensual among potential members and doesn't invade anyone. So in theory, if Ukraine wants to join and conditions are met, then Ukraine should be assimilated into NATO. From a pragmatic point of view, however, I think the West should recognise the close historical connection between Ukraine and Russia, and pro tem, defer Ukraine's membership of NATO, and instead give such guarantees as it can (without risking world war) to Ukraine to protect its peace and prosperity, and gradual move to democracy.
Switzerland isn’t in the EU. Not all of us read the Wokingham Conservatives newsletter so if you’d be so kind to provide a link.
You really are a daft one Watford. Its an article about why they rejected the EU. Search for it yourself as im on train and cant be bothered. You may understand a few things.
Good to watch “Russia Today” news channel…..gives you a different perspective on the possible conflict coming our way. Far better than the drivel from Sky or BBC.
Goldie……interested in what you thought on my post, emphasising the hypocrisy re the West and Russia, giving Guatemala as an example. Do you now agree, or disagree that we in the West are far from innocent and have done just as bad, if not far worse things than Russia ? Not excusing the appalling things Russia has done, or probably will do, however for us to be painted as “the good guys” is, imho, completely wrong. Genuinely interested in your opinion (though I might disagree of course)
The fact that there was no written agreement appears to underline why the Russians want one this time around - considering that the West broke its verbal promises then. You are sheltering behind the idea of NATO is being a kind of World policeman Goldie - there to preserve peace worldwide. Nato means exactly what it says ie. North Atlantic treaty which means it is there to serve the interests of the USA and its Western European allies. In other words it is not neutral as a World policeman should be - if you want neutrality then look to the UN. To the rest of the World (ie. not American or West European) it is seen as exactly what it is namely as a catspaw for the economic and military interests of the USA. Whilst Nato may not have actually invaded anyone apart from Yugoslavia, the Americans have invaded more countries since 1945 than any other country has. And Nato membership means, by extension, US military establishments on Russia's doorstep. The general process is that America invades and then Nato goes in as a so called 'peacekeeping force' afterwards as was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq. But of course you don't talk about the USA 'invading' Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc and establishing puppet regimes there, just as you don't talk about extermination squads for the murder of Gaddafi. You reserve those words for the actions of Putin - apparently the Russian action in the Crimea was an 'invasion' even though nobody was killed, the population there was almost entirely Russian and didn't want to be a part of the Ukraine living in an area which had been Russian until 1954.
Historically, The West's record has been poor in places, Stainsey, agreed. Particularly the US. You can go back to the anti-communism era and McCarthyism, that led on to Vietnam and Korea. Interference in Iran's affairs has led to long term relationship failure. And then there was Iraq. You have to give credit too - they got the Balkans right and saved lives. And if Syria and Afghanistan are anything to go by, the US has learned lessons from interference in other countries affairs. But this is the past, and we have to look forward. The problem with the argument that you can't act now because the past makes it hypocrisy, is that, for example, the UK and France would have been prevented from taking action against Germany when Poland was invaded in 1939, because both these countries had empires. You have to take the position from where we are now, and look at the set of facts surrounding Russia and Ukraine as it presently is. And hopefully build a coalition that includes countries outside NATO too.
Good answer mate and I do agree to an extent. However my point is not so much we can’t act, if at all necessary, but more to the fact of looking at the other side as well. As I said before I totally get why Putin and Russians might feel like they do re Ukraine joining NATO (though I wouldn’t agree with an invasion) and that’s where many go wrong. Just painting Russia as the big bad guy. After watching a guy this morning on RT I’m now thinking Putin is playing the whole thing very clever….he’s brought the Ukraine/NATO thing to the table after years of it being said they (Ukraine) will join if they wanted, whether Russia likes it or not. He’s also showing the West that he still holds military force, even though many in the West have stated Russia is a spent force militarily…. I’m just hoping he isn’t mad enough to say “**** it”…..and go in anyway
You have such an extreme anti-American position, Cologne, that you really appear tunnel-visioned. You speak of NATO "invading" Yugoslavia, despite the fact that the reason was that there was ethnic cleansing and many lives were saved. You don't address the fact that since verbal agreements were reached 32 years ago, a sociopath now occupies head of the Russian State. You don't refer to Georgia. And as far as Crimea was concerned, this is exactly what Hitler did in the Sudetenland. And we know what happened thereafter. Putin is gradually trying to recreate the Soviet Union, and welcomes the support of useful idiots in the West.
If Putin does invade Ukraine, there will be thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of lives lost. Then there is no question who the "bad" guy will be. Iraq was terrible but at least there was a genuine belief that by removing Saddam, democracy might replace him. Naive in hindsight. Putin has no such aim - quite the reverse.
I agree that I do have an anti American position Goldie - it's difficult not to. Have a look through the books on exactly how many countries the USA has invaded since 1945 - the number will be very enlightening - but I forget, they bomb more often than they invade. The truth is they have a missionary vision in which they presume that their way is the best of all possible ways and they have a divine mission to bring that 'way' to the rest of the World - anyone who opposes this expansion is a terrorist. Look at how many countries currently have American armed forces stationed in them, and whether the locals actually want this. I don't hate the American people Goldie - I've had some American friends, and some of my favourite musicians come from there - people like Gregg Allman, Warren Haynes etc. Their population probably don't know that their government creates havoc in the rest of the World - that they are themselves the biggest threat to World peace.
