That’s not precisely what he said, though, is it?
In general, what he wrote has largely come to pass.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
That’s not precisely what he said, though, is it?
In general, what he wrote has largely come to pass.
He suggested NATO should have been wound up. Do you honestly think, Ubes, that Putin, a sociopath who sends death squads around the world to murder his adversaries, would not just have marched into, at least, the old Soviet countries if there had been no opposing force? It is highly arguable that one reason he gambled on the Ukraine invasion was because Biden was so weak over the Afghanistan withdrawal.
It's no secret how much I hate Johnson. But kudos to him for going to Kyiv right now. That's proper leadership.
It was made clear by number 10 that he was 'itching' to get out there. Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but I think he saw it as a massive photo opportunity. He thinks he's Churchill, after all.
Agreed.
Can't stand Boris, but he has been pretty much faultless during this murderous invasion.
The UK too have been superb in their support for Ukraine.
However, our inability to get the Ukranian refugees housed is a ****ing disgrace.
Reading the first half of your post I was thinking, "yeah, except the refugees." Just ridiculous we can't sort that as our response has been spot on otherwise.
Last edited:
One can't possibly prove his intentions one way or the other. Photo opportunity or not, I bet it's a huge positive for the people of Ukraine and that's what counts for me. (And credit to von der Leyen for the same.)
I don’t think about anything honestly, Goldie.
What I cannot say for sure is whether there would have been a Russian leader like Putin had NATO not acted in the way that it has. Had NATO perhaps granted Russia membership (in whatever capacity) back in the day of Gorbachev and Yeltsin then maybe we’d all have been great mates by now, but instead the Yanks determined to continue their sniffy superiority just when there was an opportunity to do something else.
But, then again, I don’t know enough about the minute detail on this one.
What angered the hardliners in Russia at the time of Gorbachev and Yeltsin was that so much of the Soviet Union wanted to leave the Bloc and gain their independence. Which they did and made a great success of it. Putin wants to turn back the clock.
If you're interested, and you probably aren't, the four part documentary on BBC4 about Putin that's on at the moment makes interesting viewing....and they seem to have a similar viewpoint. Made in 2012, prior to Crimean intervention, it goes a long way to showing how Putin wanted to join the west in it's fight against Jihadists as he was having his own issues with the Chechens, but the US wanted total control and started to prickle his feathers - leading to where we are today...
I believe the Ruskies were OK with their former states being independent, but their definition of independent involved Russia continuing to wield influence and/or their former territory remaining something of a client state. The fact that the Yanks then started working in their own interests (as they always do) within these states didn’t much help the journey to where we are now. Nothing, however, excuses the military action that Putin has taken.
Nice sarcasm, Col. Who said those things you’re being sarcastic about?
But the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, E Germany etc didn't leave the Soviet Union because the US convinced them to do so.
Just a wee bit of sarcasm - seems it's infectious around here