Dow futures down 600 points now...market obviously thinks putin is winning....
I am so glad you are here posting the truth. The scales have fallen from my eyes and I see how I have been misled and lied to all these years. I have no doubt that, single-handedly, you will bring about the defeat of the west!
FTSE futures seem to be up significantly, unless i'm misreading something.
I don't think FTSE futures are open - you're probably seeing Friday's move.
Spreadex and IG trade the spreads pretty much 24/7 so whilst the main market is not open, there is still an indicative and tradeable price.
Nice to see after the end of all COVID restrictions, we went seamlessly back to normal as widely predicted.
See the Conspiracists say that on the day of the end of restrictions (24th Feb) that war was declared.
Total bunk, but it's coming surely
As of 24th Feb Ukraine was reporting 300 deaths a day. What with the contribution from all the huddling in air raid shelters on top and everything the deaths from airstrikes must seem puny.
Boris says there can be no possible excuse for Russia choosing this path of violence - yet some supposed 'loyalists' feel differently and that the NATO pretext is an excuse. Strange.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
No no, you can only do things if opponents (or non allies) agree you can. Apparently.
Nice to see after the end of all COVID restrictions, we went seamlessly back to normal as widely predicted.
See the Conspiracists say that on the day of the end of restrictions (24th Feb) that war was declared.
Total bunk, but it's coming surely
As of 24th Feb Ukraine was reporting 300 deaths a day. What with the contribution from all the huddling in air raid shelters on top and everything the deaths from airstrikes must seem puny.
Or not...
I think Putin would have preferred that story, lol
Wendy Rogers @WendyRogersAZ · 9h I nominate President Trump to broker a truce between Zelensky and Putin. We don’t want World War III.
Perhaps not a completely daft choice. Trump is one of Putins few remaining friends, so might have some influence.
Trump would LOVE to bring peace to Eastern Europe. We'd never hear the end of it.
If he could bring peace on acceptable terms I wouldn't mind hearing from it about it. Sadly we tend to hear about his achievements whether he manages them or not.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
It's also stupid. Putin has said time and again he wants to re-establish a greater Russian empire. He's said Ukraine isn't a real country. Sovereignty is whatever he decides it is when he feels like it. Did Zelensky going on about Nato membership push him over the edge? Possibly. But the fundamental problem was always there. He demands submission. Ukrainians will never submit to his rule.
Exactly right. The only stable outcomes of this situation involve Putin not being in power. For all HYUFD goes on about realpolitik, he's basically defending the position of a man whose approach to international relations is to spread propaganda about gays and Jews corrupting the West and how Russia is the last bastion of Christian purity. I mean, if that's not a moral crusade, and a lunatic one too, then what is? Realpolitik and Putin are polar opposites.
HYUFD is really all over the place here. He has no idea, absolutely no fucking clue at all, what he's talking about and it's kind of embarrassing to see it. I normally take pleasure in shooting his stupider arguments out of the barrel, but honestly, this Putinist turn is just a bit sad and tawdry.
I wish I could pretend surprise at his attitude but considering his past views on democracy, and some of his views on religion/morals I'm not remotely surprised he's sympathetic to Putin.
I'm not sure he finds the notion of Christian purity etc as off-putting as you and I do.
Night all, play nice with each other!
Don't you dare come out with that. I have never once said I was sympathetic to Putin, I have said I want economic sanctions, I just do not want war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, which may well go nuclear.
I am also damned if I am going to take lectures from a former Farage voter like you on nationalism!!
Given your stated views on Northern Ireland, you are MORE extreme than Farage on autocracy and nationalism.
It's very impressive the way that pretty much every country that counts has piled on against the Russian invasion. It's a refereshing change to see political leaders actually stepping up to the mark.
China and India abstained on the UN Security Council resolution deploring Putin's actions, so not all of them
A Congress government in India probably would have supported the UN resolution.
Dow futures down 600 points now...market obviously thinks putin is winning....
I am so glad you are here posting the truth. The scales have fallen from my eyes and I see how I have been misled and lied to all these years. I have no doubt that, single-handedly, you will bring about the defeat of the west!
FTSE futures seem to be up significantly, unless i'm misreading something.
I don't think FTSE futures are open - you're probably seeing Friday's move.
Spreadex and IG trade the spreads pretty much 24/7 so whilst the main market is not open, there is still an indicative and tradeable price.
Does Putin speak English? I don't think I have ever heard him do so. Given his background, i presumed he did, but then every meeting he has with a foreign leader there is always a translator.
It was speculated the other day, probably reasonably, that even if he does there are benefits to working through translators.
Looks like Russia are in the World Cup Finals. Bit of a reverse from 1974.
Yes, but will anyone play them ? Serve FIFA right if they win the whole thing by default.
My interpretation of Fifa's statement is they are quite aware they will need to expel Russia if nothing changes by the 24 March. However they will probably try and keep unbranded Russia in the tournament if there is a ceasefire or settlement by then.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
It's also stupid. Putin has said time and again he wants to re-establish a greater Russian empire. He's said Ukraine isn't a real country. Sovereignty is whatever he decides it is when he feels like it. Did Zelensky going on about Nato membership push him over the edge? Possibly. But the fundamental problem was always there. He demands submission. Ukrainians will never submit to his rule.
Exactly right. The only stable outcomes of this situation involve Putin not being in power. For all HYUFD goes on about realpolitik, he's basically defending the position of a man whose approach to international relations is to spread propaganda about gays and Jews corrupting the West and how Russia is the last bastion of Christian purity. I mean, if that's not a moral crusade, and a lunatic one too, then what is? Realpolitik and Putin are polar opposites.
HYUFD is really all over the place here. He has no idea, absolutely no fucking clue at all, what he's talking about and it's kind of embarrassing to see it. I normally take pleasure in shooting his stupider arguments out of the barrel, but honestly, this Putinist turn is just a bit sad and tawdry.
Rubbish.
It is not being pro Putin to want to avoid the UK being drawn into a nuclear war.
No, but it is pro-Putin to push his talking points and justifications, as you have done this evening in opposition to the stance of your party leader, Mr Loyalist.
Dow futures down 600 points now...market obviously thinks putin is winning....
I am so glad you are here posting the truth. The scales have fallen from my eyes and I see how I have been misled and lied to all these years. I have no doubt that, single-handedly, you will bring about the defeat of the west!
FTSE futures seem to be up significantly, unless i'm misreading something.
I don't think FTSE futures are open - you're probably seeing Friday's move.
Spreadex and IG trade the spreads pretty much 24/7 so whilst the main market is not open, there is still an indicative and tradeable price.
Down 1-2% over the weekend depending on market and where you calculate it from. More than normal but nothing substantial yet.
The thing with nuclear war is that it's all over if it happens. So it actually doesn't matter so much to stock markets.
NZ property might rally.
Someone on here said that was not the case. That even if we all used all our nuclear weapons, about half the population of the planet would still be fine (ish).
"The head of the LPR, Leonid Pasechnik, said that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are beginning to use more serious precision-guided weapons, and frequent shelling of front-line territories has ceased" https://twitter.com/tass_agency/status/1497972383315025922
That being said, Putin surely will not accept less than both Oblasts being fully recognised, and Ukraine still has substantial control over them (there's been slight progress towards Mariupol, but that's basically it along the entrenched lines).
Dow futures down 600 points now...market obviously thinks putin is winning....
I am so glad you are here posting the truth. The scales have fallen from my eyes and I see how I have been misled and lied to all these years. I have no doubt that, single-handedly, you will bring about the defeat of the west!
FTSE futures seem to be up significantly, unless i'm misreading something.
I don't think FTSE futures are open - you're probably seeing Friday's move.
Spreadex and IG trade the spreads pretty much 24/7 so whilst the main market is not open, there is still an indicative and tradeable price.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
It's also stupid. Putin has said time and again he wants to re-establish a greater Russian empire. He's said Ukraine isn't a real country. Sovereignty is whatever he decides it is when he feels like it. Did Zelensky going on about Nato membership push him over the edge? Possibly. But the fundamental problem was always there. He demands submission. Ukrainians will never submit to his rule.
Exactly right. The only stable outcomes of this situation involve Putin not being in power. For all HYUFD goes on about realpolitik, he's basically defending the position of a man whose approach to international relations is to spread propaganda about gays and Jews corrupting the West and how Russia is the last bastion of Christian purity. I mean, if that's not a moral crusade, and a lunatic one too, then what is? Realpolitik and Putin are polar opposites.
HYUFD is really all over the place here. He has no idea, absolutely no fucking clue at all, what he's talking about and it's kind of embarrassing to see it. I normally take pleasure in shooting his stupider arguments out of the barrel, but honestly, this Putinist turn is just a bit sad and tawdry.
Rubbish.
It is not being pro Putin to want to avoid the UK being drawn into a nuclear war.
Which based on Putin's statements there would be at least a 50% chance of if we went to war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation.
I support economic sanctions against Putin, I do not support war unless he goes beyond Ukraine and invades NATO nations
You are making pro-Putin arguments, 100% you are. You portray arguments for containment as provocative and instead argue for "realpolitik". But when somebody puts to you that this will both encourage nuclear proliferation AND the fact that Putin is on a moral crusade, you go silent about realpolitik. You can't have it both ways. Realpolitik is about doing what's practical. You just want to pay the Danegeld and hope it makes the Dane go away. And you're offering a whole country.
Either you know that Putin won't stop at Ukraine, in which case all you're doing is emboldening the Kremlin... or you don't realise that his Eurasian strategy has talked about EXACTLY THIS kind of unilateral annexation of former Russian Empire states.
Whether you're attempting to sell out Ukraine for a few weeks of feeling less anxious, or you're ignorant of what Putin stands for despite the long pattern of his actions, I don't know. I suspect your are ignorant and that is also the most charitable reading. But either way, you're badly, badly wrong.
Incidentally, I think it's time to remind everyone what you said a few short days ago. In order to defend some rubbish or other you'd come out with, you ended up claiming that Russia is a democracy. That there is your level of ignorance or delusion on the subject. You are massively and tragically out of your depth here.
No. I am not making pro Putin arguments. Just warmongers like you would happily and recklessly involve the UK in a war with Russia over Ukraine which would cost large numbers of British lives and very possibly go nuclear.
Whether or not Putin goes beyond that is purely speculation, if he did try and invade NATO nations then we may have no choice to take military action but for now he is only in Ukraine and it would be reckless in the extreme to try and call Putin's bluff by sending UK troops to war there.
Russia has competitive multi party elections, you may not like that but it does. As for being 'massively and tragically out of your depth' it is you who want to massively increase the chances of our involvement in a nuclear war leading to millions of British deaths and if all you can do is patronise those who disagree then that just reinforces your complete hotheadedness
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
It's also stupid. Putin has said time and again he wants to re-establish a greater Russian empire. He's said Ukraine isn't a real country. Sovereignty is whatever he decides it is when he feels like it. Did Zelensky going on about Nato membership push him over the edge? Possibly. But the fundamental problem was always there. He demands submission. Ukrainians will never submit to his rule.
Exactly right. The only stable outcomes of this situation involve Putin not being in power. For all HYUFD goes on about realpolitik, he's basically defending the position of a man whose approach to international relations is to spread propaganda about gays and Jews corrupting the West and how Russia is the last bastion of Christian purity. I mean, if that's not a moral crusade, and a lunatic one too, then what is? Realpolitik and Putin are polar opposites.
HYUFD is really all over the place here. He has no idea, absolutely no fucking clue at all, what he's talking about and it's kind of embarrassing to see it. I normally take pleasure in shooting his stupider arguments out of the barrel, but honestly, this Putinist turn is just a bit sad and tawdry.
I wish I could pretend surprise at his attitude but considering his past views on democracy, and some of his views on religion/morals I'm not remotely surprised he's sympathetic to Putin.
I'm not sure he finds the notion of Christian purity etc as off-putting as you and I do.
Night all, play nice with each other!
Don't you dare come out with that. I have never once said I was sympathetic to Putin, I have said I want economic sanctions, I just do not want war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, which may well go nuclear.
I am also damned if I am going to take lectures from a former Farage voter like you on nationalism!!
Given your stated views on Northern Ireland, you are MORE extreme than Farage on autocracy and nationalism.
You either support self determination or you don't.
On the one hand you say Ukraine has the right to self determination and independence from Russia, on the other hand you say Northern Ireland Protestants and Unionists do not have the right to self determine that they do not want to be a part of the Irish Republic.
So don't you dare lecture me on extremism and nationalism!!!
It's very impressive the way that pretty much every country that counts has piled on against the Russian invasion. It's a refereshing change to see political leaders actually stepping up to the mark.
China and India abstained on the UN Security Council resolution deploring Putin's actions, so not all of them
A Congress government in India probably would have supported the UN resolution.
Yup. I know it isn't.really our place. But the words of Billy Bragg ring true. Which Side are we on? The BJP aren't a force for good. But are indulged and enabled.
@PJohnson - you're like the Nazis in Raiders and you're digging in the wrong place
PJohnson is very clearly part of an online Russian disinformation campaign. It's quite interesting to observe it happening. Joined on the day of the invasion no less, 90 posts since.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
It's also stupid. Putin has said time and again he wants to re-establish a greater Russian empire. He's said Ukraine isn't a real country. Sovereignty is whatever he decides it is when he feels like it. Did Zelensky going on about Nato membership push him over the edge? Possibly. But the fundamental problem was always there. He demands submission. Ukrainians will never submit to his rule.
Exactly right. The only stable outcomes of this situation involve Putin not being in power. For all HYUFD goes on about realpolitik, he's basically defending the position of a man whose approach to international relations is to spread propaganda about gays and Jews corrupting the West and how Russia is the last bastion of Christian purity. I mean, if that's not a moral crusade, and a lunatic one too, then what is? Realpolitik and Putin are polar opposites.
HYUFD is really all over the place here. He has no idea, absolutely no fucking clue at all, what he's talking about and it's kind of embarrassing to see it. I normally take pleasure in shooting his stupider arguments out of the barrel, but honestly, this Putinist turn is just a bit sad and tawdry.
Rubbish.
It is not being pro Putin to want to avoid the UK being drawn into a nuclear war.
Which based on Putin's statements there would be at least a 50% chance of if we went to war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation.
I support economic sanctions against Putin, I do not support war unless he goes beyond Ukraine and invades NATO nations
You are making pro-Putin arguments, 100% you are. You portray arguments for containment as provocative and instead argue for "realpolitik". But when somebody puts to you that this will both encourage nuclear proliferation AND the fact that Putin is on a moral crusade, you go silent about realpolitik. You can't have it both ways. Realpolitik is about doing what's practical. You just want to pay the Danegeld and hope it makes the Dane go away. And you're offering a whole country.
Either you know that Putin won't stop at Ukraine, in which case all you're doing is emboldening the Kremlin... or you don't realise that his Eurasian strategy has talked about EXACTLY THIS kind of unilateral annexation of former Russian Empire states.
Whether you're attempting to sell out Ukraine for a few weeks of feeling less anxious, or you're ignorant of what Putin stands for despite the long pattern of his actions, I don't know. I suspect your are ignorant and that is also the most charitable reading. But either way, you're badly, badly wrong.
Incidentally, I think it's time to remind everyone what you said a few short days ago. In order to defend some rubbish or other you'd come out with, you ended up claiming that Russia is a democracy. That there is your level of ignorance or delusion on the subject. You are massively and tragically out of your depth here.
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
That's buying into Putin's argument that NATO expansion 25 years ago was a sufficient provocation as to require war. Boris, rightly, says there was no excuse. You've argued otherwise above.
I know you love to toss and turn, and argue interpretations and definitions, but you said the above and it was one of the most shocking things I've ever seen you write. You always mean precisely what you say, you've always been clear about that as a matter of integrity, even if it was an unpopular view.
The same applies here - you believe a pro-Putin pretext, no ifs ands or buts. You may not support him in all things, but you do support him in that view.
That saddens me more than anything else. It's not a desire to pile on or anything of the kind. But you went pro-Putin.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
But you're still blaming it on NATO.
And you want some countries to survive as buffer zones with Russia to keep you safe.
A Senior Advisor the the EU: 'Flying in #Ukraine skies within the hour.' In response to "EU countries will provide 'fighter jets' to Ukraine under Brussels funding: Borrell".
That 3.5 mile convoy looking mighty unsafe all of a sudden.
This is as close to NATO v Russia air warfare as we can get before the RAF are over Lviv.
As you all know, I'm quite hawkish on this stuff but given Putin had lost it, I wonder how wise it is.
I think we should help the Ukrainians as quietly as possible. All this trumpeting of it by the EU, followed by a Highway of Death scenario, might push him over the edge.
I think this is both true, and not that big a deal.
The Poles have about 30 MIGs that they are in the process of phasing out and replacing with F16s. They would not be averse to handing them over to the Ukrainians in return for the cash to complete the transition.
Flying within the hour?
Maybe, just maybe, flying this week. You'd be insane to get into an unfamiliar plane and fly off to fight.
They both fly the mig29
The Polish ones have been souped up a bit, IIRC. Plus they have a good stock of spares and missiles, I believe.
Also the Bulgarians fly Mig-29 and Su-25 - the latter would be very welcome in Ukraine, I suspect.
Polish pilots have a good reputation helping out in wartime.
It's very impressive the way that pretty much every country that counts has piled on against the Russian invasion. It's a refereshing change to see political leaders actually stepping up to the mark.
China and India abstained on the UN Security Council resolution deploring Putin's actions, so not all of them
A Congress government in India probably would have supported the UN resolution.
Albeit India was also non aligned in the Cold War under multiple Congress governments
I am sure this will go down well with those who can't even get cash out of the ATM...
Prominent Putin propagandist rages on live TV about losing his Italian villa - which is next to George Clooney's - because of sanctions over Russia's invasion of Ukraine
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
Bear in mind there is expectation of Belarus entering the war in next lot of hours. There are also Russian troops idle still in Belarus. They can do three things.
1. Support the current main advances to Kiev/Kyiv 2. Open a new thrust towards cutting off the city from the West 3. Open a totally new front in the West of the country.
The story is its President Big Hat's equivalent of the VDV, i.e. airborne such as the 38th, 103rd and the usual sprinkling of special operations as much as standard motor rifle (mechanised) units. Whether they drive in or try to fly in, stories have it that we will soon find out.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with HYUFD so much. There's a bit of a departure from common sense going on, I would say.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
But you're still blaming it on NATO.
And you want some countries to survive as buffer zones with Russia to keep you safe.
Fuck yourself warship.
I would like HYUFD to explain where he differs from Corbyn on policy in relation to Ukraine and previous policy towards ex-Baltic states.
@PJohnson - you're like the Nazis in Raiders and you're digging in the wrong place
PJohnson is very clearly part of an online Russian disinformation campaign. It's quite interesting to observe it happening. Joined on the day of the invasion no less, 90 posts since.
My honest opinion is that "it" needs to be banned. Yes, it may give some intel, but to what. This isn't GCHQ here, unless I'm mistaken? Meanwhile "it" is doing exactly what it intended to do. I notice yesterday everyone here was unanimous and suddenly today with "it" here we're not.
Just remove it, get rid of it. Don't entertain it. Gone.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
It's also stupid. Putin has said time and again he wants to re-establish a greater Russian empire. He's said Ukraine isn't a real country. Sovereignty is whatever he decides it is when he feels like it. Did Zelensky going on about Nato membership push him over the edge? Possibly. But the fundamental problem was always there. He demands submission. Ukrainians will never submit to his rule.
Exactly right. The only stable outcomes of this situation involve Putin not being in power. For all HYUFD goes on about realpolitik, he's basically defending the position of a man whose approach to international relations is to spread propaganda about gays and Jews corrupting the West and how Russia is the last bastion of Christian purity. I mean, if that's not a moral crusade, and a lunatic one too, then what is? Realpolitik and Putin are polar opposites.
HYUFD is really all over the place here. He has no idea, absolutely no fucking clue at all, what he's talking about and it's kind of embarrassing to see it. I normally take pleasure in shooting his stupider arguments out of the barrel, but honestly, this Putinist turn is just a bit sad and tawdry.
Rubbish.
It is not being pro Putin to want to avoid the UK being drawn into a nuclear war.
Which based on Putin's statements there would be at least a 50% chance of if we went to war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation.
I support economic sanctions against Putin, I do not support war unless he goes beyond Ukraine and invades NATO nations
You are making pro-Putin arguments, 100% you are. You portray arguments for containment as provocative and instead argue for "realpolitik". But when somebody puts to you that this will both encourage nuclear proliferation AND the fact that Putin is on a moral crusade, you go silent about realpolitik. You can't have it both ways. Realpolitik is about doing what's practical. You just want to pay the Danegeld and hope it makes the Dane go away. And you're offering a whole country.
Either you know that Putin won't stop at Ukraine, in which case all you're doing is emboldening the Kremlin... or you don't realise that his Eurasian strategy has talked about EXACTLY THIS kind of unilateral annexation of former Russian Empire states.
Whether you're attempting to sell out Ukraine for a few weeks of feeling less anxious, or you're ignorant of what Putin stands for despite the long pattern of his actions, I don't know. I suspect your are ignorant and that is also the most charitable reading. But either way, you're badly, badly wrong.
Incidentally, I think it's time to remind everyone what you said a few short days ago. In order to defend some rubbish or other you'd come out with, you ended up claiming that Russia is a democracy. That there is your level of ignorance or delusion on the subject. You are massively and tragically out of your depth here.
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
That's buying into Putin's argument that NATO expansion 25 years ago was a sufficient provocation as to require war. Boris, rightly, says there was no excuse. You've argued otherwise above.
I know you love to toss and turn, and argue interpretations and definitions, but you said the above and it was one of the most shocking things I've ever seen you write. You always mean precisely what you say, you've always been clear about that as a matter of integrity, even if it was an unpopular view.
The same applies here - you believe a pro-Putin pretext, no ifs ands or buts. You may not support him in all things, but you do support him in that view.
That saddens me more than anything else. It's not a desire to pile on or anything of the kind. But you went pro-Putin.
That is not a pro Putin argument. It is political reality.
NATO was originally created as a defensive organisation to defend Western Europe.
It then expanded to take in East Germany, Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic after the Cold War ended.
It is the expansion of NATO even beyond that to try and absorb the old states of the USSR which has left Russia feeling encircled and threatened and gone way beyond its original aims. That is not a pro Putin statement, it is reality, whether you like it or not that NATO has turned from a defensive organisation to in many Russians eyes, not just Putin's, an aggressive and expansionist organisation
Ah yes, the 'share the blame' preposterousness. Where even if there is merit in accepting an argument of involvement in contributory factors in a complex geo-political situation, that doesn't make blame even remotely equal or a massive invasion any less of a disproportionate, murderous action and any implied equivalence utter nonsense.
All are sinners, therefore all sins are equal? Nice try.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
The Baltics should definitely have been let in. Ukraine is not the in the same geostrategic position, though.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
It's also stupid. Putin has said time and again he wants to re-establish a greater Russian empire. He's said Ukraine isn't a real country. Sovereignty is whatever he decides it is when he feels like it. Did Zelensky going on about Nato membership push him over the edge? Possibly. But the fundamental problem was always there. He demands submission. Ukrainians will never submit to his rule.
Exactly right. The only stable outcomes of this situation involve Putin not being in power. For all HYUFD goes on about realpolitik, he's basically defending the position of a man whose approach to international relations is to spread propaganda about gays and Jews corrupting the West and how Russia is the last bastion of Christian purity. I mean, if that's not a moral crusade, and a lunatic one too, then what is? Realpolitik and Putin are polar opposites.
HYUFD is really all over the place here. He has no idea, absolutely no fucking clue at all, what he's talking about and it's kind of embarrassing to see it. I normally take pleasure in shooting his stupider arguments out of the barrel, but honestly, this Putinist turn is just a bit sad and tawdry.
Rubbish.
It is not being pro Putin to want to avoid the UK being drawn into a nuclear war.
Which based on Putin's statements there would be at least a 50% chance of if we went to war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation.
I support economic sanctions against Putin, I do not support war unless he goes beyond Ukraine and invades NATO nations
You are making pro-Putin arguments, 100% you are. You portray arguments for containment as provocative and instead argue for "realpolitik". But when somebody puts to you that this will both encourage nuclear proliferation AND the fact that Putin is on a moral crusade, you go silent about realpolitik. You can't have it both ways. Realpolitik is about doing what's practical. You just want to pay the Danegeld and hope it makes the Dane go away. And you're offering a whole country.
Either you know that Putin won't stop at Ukraine, in which case all you're doing is emboldening the Kremlin... or you don't realise that his Eurasian strategy has talked about EXACTLY THIS kind of unilateral annexation of former Russian Empire states.
Whether you're attempting to sell out Ukraine for a few weeks of feeling less anxious, or you're ignorant of what Putin stands for despite the long pattern of his actions, I don't know. I suspect your are ignorant and that is also the most charitable reading. But either way, you're badly, badly wrong.
Incidentally, I think it's time to remind everyone what you said a few short days ago. In order to defend some rubbish or other you'd come out with, you ended up claiming that Russia is a democracy. That there is your level of ignorance or delusion on the subject. You are massively and tragically out of your depth here.
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
That's buying into Putin's argument that NATO expansion 25 years ago was a sufficient provocation as to require war. Boris, rightly, says there was no excuse. You've argued otherwise above.
I know you love to toss and turn, and argue interpretations and definitions, but you said the above and it was one of the most shocking things I've ever seen you write. You always mean precisely what you say, you've always been clear about that as a matter of integrity, even if it was an unpopular view.
The same applies here - you believe a pro-Putin pretext, no ifs ands or buts. You may not support him in all things, but you do support him in that view.
That saddens me more than anything else. It's not a desire to pile on or anything of the kind. But you went pro-Putin.
The irony is, that whilst Putin uses it as a pre-text, not even he states it as his genuine reason any more! So HYUFD is left saying he to some extent understand why Russia has invaded, think the West is partly responsible for that, whilst Putin is on the record as saying this is actually not to do with NATO (the 'official excuse') but about re-establishing a greater Russia. Because he doesn't see Ukraine as a real country.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
The Baltics should definitely have been let in. Ukraine is not the in the same geostrategic position, though.
That is not HYUFD's view. He says we should have stopped at Poland and the other ex Soviet satellite states. But not extended to the ex-soviet states.
A 'palace coup' would be welcome but the current Russian elite (compared to other autocracies, let alone compared to any democratic country) is a very small group of people, partly by Putin's own design. If he goes, either the whole country collapses or his replacement is likely to be someone from the current regime.
I don't think we should hope for any sort of regime change or even 'popular' uprising in Russia. No matter how awful the current regime, the one replacing it is, more often than not, worse.
By the way, I know the Hitler comparisons are easy, but I see Putin as more of a Louis XIV type.
P.S. I can't quite figure out if the earlier posts were just being satyrical, but no, Johnson has not been cultivated by Putin. I don't even think Trump was - '45' was just a useful idiot with a fetish for strongmen. If I could pick the most useful politician to the Russian president in the last decade, I would probably say Angela Merkel, whom all wise and sensible commentators and columnists cited as a model for British politicians, at least until the day before yesterday.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
The Baltics should definitely have been let in. Ukraine is not the same though.
I'm also No to War in Ukraine. The tankies are a small but noisy voice on the left. I'd be more concerned by their influence on the right just now.
The only person that wants war in Ukraine is Putin.
He must lose.
Well yes. I can spot on agree with that. However, I would gently point out your posting of anti- German anti -left stuff isn't exactly helping with that.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
The Baltics should definitely have been let in. Ukraine is not the in the same geostrategic position, though.
That is not HYUFD's view.
I know, but he also seems to be getting pilloried for suggesting that only an attack on a NATO state should prompt direct military action, in terms troops and planes, for instance. That's just common sense.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
It's also stupid. Putin has said time and again he wants to re-establish a greater Russian empire. He's said Ukraine isn't a real country. Sovereignty is whatever he decides it is when he feels like it. Did Zelensky going on about Nato membership push him over the edge? Possibly. But the fundamental problem was always there. He demands submission. Ukrainians will never submit to his rule.
Exactly right. The only stable outcomes of this situation involve Putin not being in power. For all HYUFD goes on about realpolitik, he's basically defending the position of a man whose approach to international relations is to spread propaganda about gays and Jews corrupting the West and how Russia is the last bastion of Christian purity. I mean, if that's not a moral crusade, and a lunatic one too, then what is? Realpolitik and Putin are polar opposites.
HYUFD is really all over the place here. He has no idea, absolutely no fucking clue at all, what he's talking about and it's kind of embarrassing to see it. I normally take pleasure in shooting his stupider arguments out of the barrel, but honestly, this Putinist turn is just a bit sad and tawdry.
Rubbish.
It is not being pro Putin to want to avoid the UK being drawn into a nuclear war.
Which based on Putin's statements there would be at least a 50% chance of if we went to war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation.
I support economic sanctions against Putin, I do not support war unless he goes beyond Ukraine and invades NATO nations
You are making pro-Putin arguments, 100% you are. You portray arguments for containment as provocative and instead argue for "realpolitik". But when somebody puts to you that this will both encourage nuclear proliferation AND the fact that Putin is on a moral crusade, you go silent about realpolitik. You can't have it both ways. Realpolitik is about doing what's practical. You just want to pay the Danegeld and hope it makes the Dane go away. And you're offering a whole country.
Either you know that Putin won't stop at Ukraine, in which case all you're doing is emboldening the Kremlin... or you don't realise that his Eurasian strategy has talked about EXACTLY THIS kind of unilateral annexation of former Russian Empire states.
Whether you're attempting to sell out Ukraine for a few weeks of feeling less anxious, or you're ignorant of what Putin stands for despite the long pattern of his actions, I don't know. I suspect your are ignorant and that is also the most charitable reading. But either way, you're badly, badly wrong.
Incidentally, I think it's time to remind everyone what you said a few short days ago. In order to defend some rubbish or other you'd come out with, you ended up claiming that Russia is a democracy. That there is your level of ignorance or delusion on the subject. You are massively and tragically out of your depth here.
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
That's buying into Putin's argument that NATO expansion 25 years ago was a sufficient provocation as to require war. Boris, rightly, says there was no excuse. You've argued otherwise above.
I know you love to toss and turn, and argue interpretations and definitions, but you said the above and it was one of the most shocking things I've ever seen you write. You always mean precisely what you say, you've always been clear about that as a matter of integrity, even if it was an unpopular view.
The same applies here - you believe a pro-Putin pretext, no ifs ands or buts. You may not support him in all things, but you do support him in that view.
That saddens me more than anything else. It's not a desire to pile on or anything of the kind. But you went pro-Putin.
That is not a pro Putin argument. It is political reality.
NATO was originally created as a defensive organisation to defend Western Europe.
It then expanded to take in East Germany, Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic after the Cold War ended.
It is the expansion of NATO even beyond that to try and absorb the old states of the USSR which has left Russia feeling encircled and threatened and gone way beyond its original aims. That is not a pro Putin statement, it is reality, whether you like it or not that NATO has turned from a defensive organisation to in many Russians eyes, not just Putin's, an aggressive and expansionist organisation
Tough titty. These are not countries that somehow belong to Russia.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
Had Ukraine kept its own nuclear arsenal then it would have ensured its own security, giving up that was also a major mistake
A 'palace coup' would be welcome but the current Russian elite (compared to other autocracies, let alone compared to any democratic country) is a very small group of people, partly by Putin's own design. If he goes, either the whole country collapses or his replacement is likely to be someone from the current regime.
I don't think we should hope for any sort of regime change or even 'popular' uprising in Russia. No matter how awful the current regime, the one replacing it is, more often than not, worse.
By the way, I know the Hitler comparisons are easy, but I see Putin as more of a Louis XIV type.
P.S. I can't quite figure out if the earlier posts were just being satyrical, but no, Johnson has not been cultivated by Putin. I don't even think Trump was - '45' was just a useful idiot with a fetish for strongmen. If I could pick the most useful politician to the Russian president in the last decade, I would probably say Angela Merkel, whom all wise and sensible commentators and columnists cited as a model for British politicians, at least until the day before yesterday.
I think you are totally wrong about Trump. The evidence is overwhelming.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
The Baltics should definitely have been let in. Ukraine is not the same though.
Would you tell a Klitschko that?
If Zelenskiy has got a wide enough view, as he seemed to hint earlier on today perhaps, alongside seeking cast-iron guarantees about a reduced Russian military and political presence in Ukraine to be enforced by outsiders, he'll know that.
@PJohnson - you're like the Nazis in Raiders and you're digging in the wrong place
PJohnson is very clearly part of an online Russian disinformation campaign. It's quite interesting to observe it happening. Joined on the day of the invasion no less, 90 posts since.
It was never going to work here because this joint is rammed full of very well informed performative pedants and people who act like they are the physical embodiment of a TED Talk.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
It's also stupid. Putin has said time and again he wants to re-establish a greater Russian empire. He's said Ukraine isn't a real country. Sovereignty is whatever he decides it is when he feels like it. Did Zelensky going on about Nato membership push him over the edge? Possibly. But the fundamental problem was always there. He demands submission. Ukrainians will never submit to his rule.
Exactly right. The only stable outcomes of this situation involve Putin not being in power. For all HYUFD goes on about realpolitik, he's basically defending the position of a man whose approach to international relations is to spread propaganda about gays and Jews corrupting the West and how Russia is the last bastion of Christian purity. I mean, if that's not a moral crusade, and a lunatic one too, then what is? Realpolitik and Putin are polar opposites.
HYUFD is really all over the place here. He has no idea, absolutely no fucking clue at all, what he's talking about and it's kind of embarrassing to see it. I normally take pleasure in shooting his stupider arguments out of the barrel, but honestly, this Putinist turn is just a bit sad and tawdry.
Rubbish.
It is not being pro Putin to want to avoid the UK being drawn into a nuclear war.
Which based on Putin's statements there would be at least a 50% chance of if we went to war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation.
I support economic sanctions against Putin, I do not support war unless he goes beyond Ukraine and invades NATO nations
You are making pro-Putin arguments, 100% you are. You portray arguments for containment as provocative and instead argue for "realpolitik". But when somebody puts to you that this will both encourage nuclear proliferation AND the fact that Putin is on a moral crusade, you go silent about realpolitik. You can't have it both ways. Realpolitik is about doing what's practical. You just want to pay the Danegeld and hope it makes the Dane go away. And you're offering a whole country.
Either you know that Putin won't stop at Ukraine, in which case all you're doing is emboldening the Kremlin... or you don't realise that his Eurasian strategy has talked about EXACTLY THIS kind of unilateral annexation of former Russian Empire states.
Whether you're attempting to sell out Ukraine for a few weeks of feeling less anxious, or you're ignorant of what Putin stands for despite the long pattern of his actions, I don't know. I suspect your are ignorant and that is also the most charitable reading. But either way, you're badly, badly wrong.
Incidentally, I think it's time to remind everyone what you said a few short days ago. In order to defend some rubbish or other you'd come out with, you ended up claiming that Russia is a democracy. That there is your level of ignorance or delusion on the subject. You are massively and tragically out of your depth here.
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
That's buying into Putin's argument that NATO expansion 25 years ago was a sufficient provocation as to require war. Boris, rightly, says there was no excuse. You've argued otherwise above.
I know you love to toss and turn, and argue interpretations and definitions, but you said the above and it was one of the most shocking things I've ever seen you write. You always mean precisely what you say, you've always been clear about that as a matter of integrity, even if it was an unpopular view.
The same applies here - you believe a pro-Putin pretext, no ifs ands or buts. You may not support him in all things, but you do support him in that view.
That saddens me more than anything else. It's not a desire to pile on or anything of the kind. But you went pro-Putin.
That is not a pro Putin argument. It is political reality.
NATO was originally created as a defensive organisation to defend Europe.
It then expanded to take in East Germany, Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic after the Cold War ended.
It is the expansion of NATO even beyond that to absorb the old states of the USSR which has left Russia feeling encircled and threatened and gone way beyond its original aims. That is not a pro Putin statement, it is reality, whether you like it or not
Tell that to Boris, he disagrees with you and he is right on this point. Arguing Russia's hurt feelings (over something that happened 25 years ago no less) are the cause of invasion is to justify it.
I'm sorry, HYUFD, I used to respect you no matter that I disagreed with you on plenty. But now you are pushing a Kremlin pre-text for war, proudly and unashamedly.
I know you are not a fan of Putin, but you share his views on that particular matter and I cannot respect that one bit.
I think allowing your stubborness act to lead you to argue points made by the Kremilin as a pretext for war is just plain wrong - if ever there was a time for you to bend, just slightly, and reword what you said so it was not quite so much a Kremlin talking point, this would be it. That would be a sign of strength, not weakness. I know you won't change your view because you never will, you do appear to see any shift, however small, as weakness, but as I go to sleep I find it sad you refuse to see what is there in black and white in what you said. Your true views cannot be unseen. With apologies for being melodramatic, I'm not sure I will look at posts of yours in quite the same way again. I think I need a break, you've quite depressed me.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
But you're still blaming it on NATO.
And you want some countries to survive as buffer zones with Russia to keep you safe.
Fuck yourself warship.
I would like HYUFD to explain where he differs from Corbyn on policy in relation to Ukraine and previous policy towards ex-Baltic states.
Corbyn managed a statement (one at least) which managed to criticise Russia without giving succour to one of its pretexts.
I'm also No to War in Ukraine. The tankies are a small but noisy voice on the left. I'd be more concerned by their influence on the right just now.
The only person that wants war in Ukraine is Putin.
He must lose.
Well yes. I can spot on agree with that. However, I would gently point out your posting of anti- German anti -left stuff isn't exactly helping with that.
I haven't posted anything "anti German" since they belatedly joined in, except for one post saying they'd taken their damned time.
I haven't applauded them for joining in though, and they deserve it. I'm fucking delighted they're catching up and they seem to have brought the Swedes with them.
Speaking as a lurker, PJohnson needs to be banned. They're clearly a troll, as exhibited by the IP address reveal of them from a spam farm.
The justification to not ban is not valid. Why? Because while those posting on this site may well be well-informed enough to speak against, those READING AND VIEWING this site are far less informed. .
With this in mind, I ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE for PJohnson to be banned. This is part of their disinformation campaign and while the active posters here may not fall for it, some of those reading it MAY.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
The Baltics should definitely have been let in. Ukraine is not the in the same geostrategic position, though.
That is not HYUFD's view.
I know, but he also seems to be getting pilloried for suggesting that only an attack on a NATO state should prompt direct military action, in terms troops and planes, for instance. That's just common sense.
I think you are misreading. There are very few on here who have been advocating direct military involvement. (I think Aslan was saying that we should be putting planes in the sky to enforce a no fly zone and that was it).
He has been conflating those criticising his stance on NATO expansion and alleged Putin "justification" for invading Ukraine (blaming a lot of the latter on the former - ie. the West's fault) with claims that we are all desperate to trigger nuclear war.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
The Baltics should definitely have been let in. Ukraine is not the in the same geostrategic position, though.
That is not HYUFD's view.
I know, but he also seems to be getting pilloried for suggesting that only an attack on a NATO state should prompt direct military action, in terms troops and planes, for instance. That's just common sense.
I think you are misreading. There are very few on here who have been advocating direct military involvement. (I think Aslan was saying that we should be putting planes in the sky to enforce a no fly zone and that was it).
He has been conflating those criticising his stance on NATO expansion and alleged Putin "justification" for invading Ukraine (blaming a lot of the latter on the former - ie. the West's fault) with claims that we are all desperate to trigger nuclear war.
Plenty are arguing we should intervene militarily in Ukraine including and most notably Aslan who by advocating sending British fighter jets into Ukraine to take on the Russians could well push us into WW3
@PJohnson - you're like the Nazis in Raiders and you're digging in the wrong place
PJohnson is very clearly part of an online Russian disinformation campaign. It's quite interesting to observe it happening. Joined on the day of the invasion no less, 90 posts since.
It was never going to work here because this joint is rammed full of very well informed performative pedants and people who act like they are the physical embodiment of a TED Talk.
But I bet it is having an effect elsewhere.
There are also unfortunately some here that think Radiohead are a fantastic live act and that Die Hard isnt a Christmas movie ;-)
Speaking as a lurker, PJohnson needs to be banned. They're clearly a troll, as exhibited by the IP address reveal of them from a spam farm.
The justification to not ban is not valid. Why? Because while those posting on this site may well be well-informed enough to speak against, those READING AND VIEWING this site are far more. From my own experience I have spoken to several people who actively read this site and it's comments and do not reply nor register an account.
With this in mind, I ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE for PJohnson to be banned. This is part of their disinformation campaign and while the active posters here may not fall for it, some of those reading it MAY.
May I suggest as one of your first posts here you do not try and get other posters banned.
PJohnson is perfectly entitled to express his view, even if not a popular one, as long as he expresses it in a civil fashion
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
Had Ukraine kept its own nuclear arsenal then it would have ensured its own security, giving up that was also a major mistake
So you think that the West should have been quite happy with Ukraine maintaining a nuclear arsenal? Any other countries you think would be wise to acquire nuclear weapons to ensure their own security so we don't have to provide it for them? Why did we even bother with setting up NATO in the first place? Just giving EVERY country nuclear weapons would have done the trick, no?
I'm also No to War in Ukraine. The tankies are a small but noisy voice on the left. I'd be more concerned by their influence on the right just now.
The only person that wants war in Ukraine is Putin.
He must lose.
Well yes. I can spot on agree with that. However, I would gently point out your posting of anti- German anti -left stuff isn't exactly helping with that.
And "anti left"?
I'm a Tory, but I've praised Starmer highly throughout...
Do you think my attacks on Putinistas Corbyn and @HYUFD are anti-left?
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
It's also stupid. Putin has said time and again he wants to re-establish a greater Russian empire. He's said Ukraine isn't a real country. Sovereignty is whatever he decides it is when he feels like it. Did Zelensky going on about Nato membership push him over the edge? Possibly. But the fundamental problem was always there. He demands submission. Ukrainians will never submit to his rule.
Exactly right. The only stable outcomes of this situation involve Putin not being in power. For all HYUFD goes on about realpolitik, he's basically defending the position of a man whose approach to international relations is to spread propaganda about gays and Jews corrupting the West and how Russia is the last bastion of Christian purity. I mean, if that's not a moral crusade, and a lunatic one too, then what is? Realpolitik and Putin are polar opposites.
HYUFD is really all over the place here. He has no idea, absolutely no fucking clue at all, what he's talking about and it's kind of embarrassing to see it. I normally take pleasure in shooting his stupider arguments out of the barrel, but honestly, this Putinist turn is just a bit sad and tawdry.
Rubbish.
It is not being pro Putin to want to avoid the UK being drawn into a nuclear war.
Which based on Putin's statements there would be at least a 50% chance of if we went to war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation.
I support economic sanctions against Putin, I do not support war unless he goes beyond Ukraine and invades NATO nations
You are making pro-Putin arguments, 100% you are. You portray arguments for containment as provocative and instead argue for "realpolitik". But when somebody puts to you that this will both encourage nuclear proliferation AND the fact that Putin is on a moral crusade, you go silent about realpolitik. You can't have it both ways. Realpolitik is about doing what's practical. You just want to pay the Danegeld and hope it makes the Dane go away. And you're offering a whole country.
Either you know that Putin won't stop at Ukraine, in which case all you're doing is emboldening the Kremlin... or you don't realise that his Eurasian strategy has talked about EXACTLY THIS kind of unilateral annexation of former Russian Empire states.
Whether you're attempting to sell out Ukraine for a few weeks of feeling less anxious, or you're ignorant of what Putin stands for despite the long pattern of his actions, I don't know. I suspect your are ignorant and that is also the most charitable reading. But either way, you're badly, badly wrong.
Incidentally, I think it's time to remind everyone what you said a few short days ago. In order to defend some rubbish or other you'd come out with, you ended up claiming that Russia is a democracy. That there is your level of ignorance or delusion on the subject. You are massively and tragically out of your depth here.
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
That's buying into Putin's argument that NATO expansion 25 years ago was a sufficient provocation as to require war. Boris, rightly, says there was no excuse. You've argued otherwise above.
I know you love to toss and turn, and argue interpretations and definitions, but you said the above and it was one of the most shocking things I've ever seen you write. You always mean precisely what you say, you've always been clear about that as a matter of integrity, even if it was an unpopular view.
The same applies here - you believe a pro-Putin pretext, no ifs ands or buts. You may not support him in all things, but you do support him in that view.
That saddens me more than anything else. It's not a desire to pile on or anything of the kind. But you went pro-Putin.
That is not a pro Putin argument. It is political reality.
NATO was originally created as a defensive organisation to defend Europe.
It then expanded to take in East Germany, Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic after the Cold War ended.
It is the expansion of NATO even beyond that to absorb the old states of the USSR which has left Russia feeling encircled and threatened and gone way beyond its original aims. That is not a pro Putin statement, it is reality, whether you like it or not
Tell that to Boris, he disagrees with you and he is right on this point. Arguing Russia's hurt feelings (over something that happened 25 years ago no less) are the cause of invasion is to justify it.
I'm sorry, HYUFD, I used to respect you no matter that I disagreed with you on plenty. But now you are pushing a Kremlin pre-text for war, proudly and unashamedly.
I know you are not a fan of Putin, but you share his views on that particular matter and I cannot respect that one bit.
I think allowing your stubborness act to lead you to argue points made by the Kremilin as a pretext for war is just plain wrong - if ever there was a time for you to bend, just slightly, and reword what you said so it was not quite so much a Kremlin talking point, this would be it. That would be a sign of strength, not weakness. I know you won't change your view because you never will, you do appear to see any shift, however small, as weakness, but as I go to sleep I find it sad you refuse to see what is there in black and white in what you said. Your true views cannot be unseen. With apologies for being melodramatic, I'm not sure I will look at posts of yours in quite the same way again. I think I need a break, you've quite depressed me.
HYUFD The change and drive has come from Putin. He has no justification. He has stated an intent to reclaim NATO members. Stop him at stage one. If you don't stage 2, 3 and or more follow. If uou don't stop him the future alternative is potentially far worse.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
It's also stupid. Putin has said time and again he wants to re-establish a greater Russian empire. He's said Ukraine isn't a real country. Sovereignty is whatever he decides it is when he feels like it. Did Zelensky going on about Nato membership push him over the edge? Possibly. But the fundamental problem was always there. He demands submission. Ukrainians will never submit to his rule.
Exactly right. The only stable outcomes of this situation involve Putin not being in power. For all HYUFD goes on about realpolitik, he's basically defending the position of a man whose approach to international relations is to spread propaganda about gays and Jews corrupting the West and how Russia is the last bastion of Christian purity. I mean, if that's not a moral crusade, and a lunatic one too, then what is? Realpolitik and Putin are polar opposites.
HYUFD is really all over the place here. He has no idea, absolutely no fucking clue at all, what he's talking about and it's kind of embarrassing to see it. I normally take pleasure in shooting his stupider arguments out of the barrel, but honestly, this Putinist turn is just a bit sad and tawdry.
Rubbish.
It is not being pro Putin to want to avoid the UK being drawn into a nuclear war.
No, but it is pro-Putin to push his talking points and justifications, as you have done this evening in opposition to the stance of your party leader, Mr Loyalist.
Speaking as a lurker, PJohnson needs to be banned. They're clearly a troll, as exhibited by the IP address reveal of them from a spam farm.
The justification to not ban is not valid. Why? Because while those posting on this site may well be well-informed enough to speak against, those READING AND VIEWING this site are far more. From my own experience I have spoken to several people who actively read this site and it's comments and do not reply nor register an account.
With this in mind, I ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE for PJohnson to be banned. This is part of their disinformation campaign and while the active posters here may not fall for it, some of those reading it MAY.
May I suggest as one of your first posts here you do not try and get other posters banned.
PJohnson is perfectly entitled to express his view, even if not a popular one, as long as he expresses it in a civil fashion
Thank you for your attentionon this matter. My view is he should be banned, which is also very valid as my own view which I am expressing freely right now.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
It's also stupid. Putin has said time and again he wants to re-establish a greater Russian empire. He's said Ukraine isn't a real country. Sovereignty is whatever he decides it is when he feels like it. Did Zelensky going on about Nato membership push him over the edge? Possibly. But the fundamental problem was always there. He demands submission. Ukrainians will never submit to his rule.
Exactly right. The only stable outcomes of this situation involve Putin not being in power. For all HYUFD goes on about realpolitik, he's basically defending the position of a man whose approach to international relations is to spread propaganda about gays and Jews corrupting the West and how Russia is the last bastion of Christian purity. I mean, if that's not a moral crusade, and a lunatic one too, then what is? Realpolitik and Putin are polar opposites.
HYUFD is really all over the place here. He has no idea, absolutely no fucking clue at all, what he's talking about and it's kind of embarrassing to see it. I normally take pleasure in shooting his stupider arguments out of the barrel, but honestly, this Putinist turn is just a bit sad and tawdry.
Rubbish.
It is not being pro Putin to want to avoid the UK being drawn into a nuclear war.
Which based on Putin's statements there would be at least a 50% chance of if we went to war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation.
I support economic sanctions against Putin, I do not support war unless he goes beyond Ukraine and invades NATO nations
You are making pro-Putin arguments, 100% you are. You portray arguments for containment as provocative and instead argue for "realpolitik". But when somebody puts to you that this will both encourage nuclear proliferation AND the fact that Putin is on a moral crusade, you go silent about realpolitik. You can't have it both ways. Realpolitik is about doing what's practical. You just want to pay the Danegeld and hope it makes the Dane go away. And you're offering a whole country.
Either you know that Putin won't stop at Ukraine, in which case all you're doing is emboldening the Kremlin... or you don't realise that his Eurasian strategy has talked about EXACTLY THIS kind of unilateral annexation of former Russian Empire states.
Whether you're attempting to sell out Ukraine for a few weeks of feeling less anxious, or you're ignorant of what Putin stands for despite the long pattern of his actions, I don't know. I suspect your are ignorant and that is also the most charitable reading. But either way, you're badly, badly wrong.
Incidentally, I think it's time to remind everyone what you said a few short days ago. In order to defend some rubbish or other you'd come out with, you ended up claiming that Russia is a democracy. That there is your level of ignorance or delusion on the subject. You are massively and tragically out of your depth here.
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
That's buying into Putin's argument that NATO expansion 25 years ago was a sufficient provocation as to require war. Boris, rightly, says there was no excuse. You've argued otherwise above.
I know you love to toss and turn, and argue interpretations and definitions, but you said the above and it was one of the most shocking things I've ever seen you write. You always mean precisely what you say, you've always been clear about that as a matter of integrity, even if it was an unpopular view.
The same applies here - you believe a pro-Putin pretext, no ifs ands or buts. You may not support him in all things, but you do support him in that view.
That saddens me more than anything else. It's not a desire to pile on or anything of the kind. But you went pro-Putin.
That is not a pro Putin argument. It is political reality.
NATO was originally created as a defensive organisation to defend Europe.
It then expanded to take in East Germany, Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic after the Cold War ended.
It is the expansion of NATO even beyond that to absorb the old states of the USSR which has left Russia feeling encircled and threatened and gone way beyond its original aims. That is not a pro Putin statement, it is reality, whether you like it or not
Tell that to Boris, he disagrees with you and he is right on this point. Arguing Russia's hurt feelings (over something that happened 25 years ago no less) are the cause of invasion is to justify it.
I'm sorry, HYUFD, I used to respect you no matter that I disagreed with you on plenty. But now you are pushing a Kremlin pre-text for war, proudly and unashamedly.
I know you are not a fan of Putin, but you share his views on that particular matter and I cannot respect that one bit.
I think allowing your stubborness act to lead you to argue points made by the Kremilin as a pretext for war is just plain wrong - if ever there was a time for you to bend, just slightly, and reword what you said so it was not quite so much a Kremlin talking point, this would be it. That would be a sign of strength, not weakness. I know you won't change your view because you never will, you do appear to see any shift, however small, as weakness, but as I go to sleep I find it sad you refuse to see what is there in black and white in what you said. Your true views cannot be unseen. With apologies for being melodramatic, I'm not sure I will look at posts of yours in quite the same way again. I think I need a break, you've quite depressed me.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
But you're still blaming it on NATO.
And you want some countries to survive as buffer zones with Russia to keep you safe.
Fuck yourself warship.
I would like HYUFD to explain where he differs from Corbyn on policy in relation to Ukraine and previous policy towards ex-Baltic states.
Corbyn managed a statement (one at least) which managed to criticise Russia without giving succour to one of its pretexts.
I am afraid I am not changing my view just so you keep looking at my posts in a particular way
Speaking as a lurker, PJohnson needs to be banned. They're clearly a troll, as exhibited by the IP address reveal of them from a spam farm.
The justification to not ban is not valid. Why? Because while those posting on this site may well be well-informed enough to speak against, those READING AND VIEWING this site are far more. From my own experience I have spoken to several people who actively read this site and it's comments and do not reply nor register an account.
With this in mind, I ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE for PJohnson to be banned. This is part of their disinformation campaign and while the active posters here may not fall for it, some of those reading it MAY.
May I suggest as one of your first posts here you do not try and get other posters banned.
PJohnson is perfectly entitled to express his view, even if not a popular one, as long as he expresses it in a civil fashion
It is not one of his "first posts". And RCS has already identified that the origin (based on IP address) is highly suspect and suggests he may not be a genuine poster.
I'm also No to War in Ukraine. The tankies are a small but noisy voice on the left. I'd be more concerned by their influence on the right just now.
The only person that wants war in Ukraine is Putin.
He must lose.
Well yes. I can spot on agree with that. However, I would gently point out your posting of anti- German anti -left stuff isn't exactly helping with that.
And "anti left"?
I'm a Tory, but I've praised Starmer highly throughout...
Do you think my attacks on Putinistas Corbyn and @HYUFD are anti-left?
Or maybe it was my "fuck yourself warship" attack on famed left winger @Leon ?
Speaking as a lurker, PJohnson needs to be banned. They're clearly a troll, as exhibited by the IP address reveal of them from a spam farm.
The justification to not ban is not valid. Why? Because while those posting on this site may well be well-informed enough to speak against, those READING AND VIEWING this site are far more. From my own experience I have spoken to several people who actively read this site and it's comments and do not reply nor register an account.
With this in mind, I ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE for PJohnson to be banned. This is part of their disinformation campaign and while the active posters here may not fall for it, some of those reading it MAY.
May I suggest as one of your first posts here you do not try and get other posters banned.
PJohnson is perfectly entitled to express his view, even if not a popular one, as long as he expresses it in a civil fashion
It is not one of his "first posts". And RCS has already identified that the origin (based on IP address) is highly suspect and suggests he may not be a genuine poster.
Yeah, I've been registered here for over five years. Simply been lurking, but pissed off seeing this Russian bot trying to well.. do exactly what's playing out right now.
@PJohnson - you're like the Nazis in Raiders and you're digging in the wrong place
PJohnson is very clearly part of an online Russian disinformation campaign. It's quite interesting to observe it happening. Joined on the day of the invasion no less, 90 posts since.
It's ironic that PJohnson tried to justify the invasion of Ukraine based on the fictious threat of nuclear weapons being placed on their soil, and now Belarus has 'voted' to allow the same. Presumably when he next appears, he will be arguing that Poland should invade Belarus in order to deal with this threat head on.
I'm also No to War in Ukraine. The tankies are a small but noisy voice on the left. I'd be more concerned by their influence on the right just now.
The only person that wants war in Ukraine is Putin.
He must lose.
Well yes. I can spot on agree with that. However, I would gently point out your posting of anti- German anti -left stuff isn't exactly helping with that.
I haven't posted anything "anti German" since they belatedly joined in, except for one post saying they'd taken their damned time.
I haven't applauded them for joining in though, and they deserve it. I'm fucking delighted they're catching up and they seem to have brought the Swedes with them.
Bravo!
Fair enough. It hasn't been.easy on anyone. The broad left of centre is, however, as solid as the broad right of centre. There are exceptions on both sides of course. There has always been a tankie movement on the left. My 80 yo Mother is one. And, yes, I've had the phone call. I think the difference may be that the left has 90 years experience of dealing with a pro - Soviet fringe. Whereas, this whole concept is very new for the broader right. It's become embedded in the GOP before anyone sensible noticed for example. I do worry that its tentacles ensnare more than most realise.
A 'palace coup' would be welcome but the current Russian elite (compared to other autocracies, let alone compared to any democratic country) is a very small group of people, partly by Putin's own design. If he goes, either the whole country collapses or his replacement is likely to be someone from the current regime.
I don't think we should hope for any sort of regime change or even 'popular' uprising in Russia. No matter how awful the current regime, the one replacing it is, more often than not, worse.
By the way, I know the Hitler comparisons are easy, but I see Putin as more of a Louis XIV type.
P.S. I can't quite figure out if the earlier posts were just being satyrical, but no, Johnson has not been cultivated by Putin. I don't even think Trump was - '45' was just a useful idiot with a fetish for strongmen. If I could pick the most useful politician to the Russian president in the last decade, I would probably say Angela Merkel, whom all wise and sensible commentators and columnists cited as a model for British politicians, at least until the day before yesterday.
I think you are totally wrong about Trump. The evidence is overwhelming.
I could well be wrong on Trump, happy to give way on that. Trump just seemed to me so innately pro-Putin that I don't think he was bribed/blackmailed to be so. Ultimately the result was the same, whether he bought him or not - a pro-Putin American president.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
The Baltics should definitely have been let in. Ukraine is not the in the same geostrategic position, though.
That is not HYUFD's view.
I know, but he also seems to be getting pilloried for suggesting that only an attack on a NATO state should prompt direct military action, in terms troops and planes, for instance. That's just common sense.
I think you are misreading. There are very few on here who have been advocating direct military involvement. (I think Aslan was saying that we should be putting planes in the sky to enforce a no fly zone and that was it).
He has been conflating those criticising his stance on NATO expansion and alleged Putin "justification" for invading Ukraine (blaming a lot of the latter on the former - ie. the West's fault) with claims that we are all desperate to trigger nuclear war.
Plenty are arguing we should intervene militarily in Ukraine including and most notably Aslan who by advocating sending British fighter jets into Ukraine to take on the Russians could well push us into WW3
Can you name the others of this "plenty"? - because you've been accusing everyone arguing with you of being in favour of that.
I'm also No to War in Ukraine. The tankies are a small but noisy voice on the left. I'd be more concerned by their influence on the right just now.
The only person that wants war in Ukraine is Putin.
He must lose.
Well yes. I can spot on agree with that. However, I would gently point out your posting of anti- German anti -left stuff isn't exactly helping with that.
I haven't posted anything "anti German" since they belatedly joined in, except for one post saying they'd taken their damned time.
I haven't applauded them for joining in though, and they deserve it. I'm fucking delighted they're catching up and they seem to have brought the Swedes with them.
Bravo!
Also, I never posted anything anti German at all.
I complained that the Germans thought they should have a special status shielding them from protecting Ukraine BECAUSE THEY RAPED IT EIGHTY YEARS AGO FFS!!!
Speaking as a lurker, PJohnson needs to be banned. They're clearly a troll, as exhibited by the IP address reveal of them from a spam farm.
The justification to not ban is not valid. Why? Because while those posting on this site may well be well-informed enough to speak against, those READING AND VIEWING this site are far more. From my own experience I have spoken to several people who actively read this site and it's comments and do not reply nor register an account.
With this in mind, I ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE for PJohnson to be banned. This is part of their disinformation campaign and while the active posters here may not fall for it, some of those reading it MAY.
May I suggest as one of your first posts here you do not try and get other posters banned.
PJohnson is perfectly entitled to express his view, even if not a popular one, as long as he expresses it in a civil fashion
I suspect @PJohnson is a "they", rather than a "he"
A 'palace coup' would be welcome but the current Russian elite (compared to other autocracies, let alone compared to any democratic country) is a very small group of people, partly by Putin's own design. If he goes, either the whole country collapses or his replacement is likely to be someone from the current regime.
I don't think we should hope for any sort of regime change or even 'popular' uprising in Russia. No matter how awful the current regime, the one replacing it is, more often than not, worse.
By the way, I know the Hitler comparisons are easy, but I see Putin as more of a Louis XIV type.
P.S. I can't quite figure out if the earlier posts were just being satyrical, but no, Johnson has not been cultivated by Putin. I don't even think Trump was - '45' was just a useful idiot with a fetish for strongmen. If I could pick the most useful politician to the Russian president in the last decade, I would probably say Angela Merkel, whom all wise and sensible commentators and columnists cited as a model for British politicians, at least until the day before yesterday.
I think you are totally wrong about Trump. The evidence is overwhelming.
I could well be wrong on Trump, happy to defer on that. Trump just seems to me so innately pro-Putin that I don't think he was bribed/blackmailed to be so.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "cultivated".
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
Had Ukraine kept its own nuclear arsenal then it would have ensured its own security, giving up that was also a major mistake
So you think that the West should have been quite happy with Ukraine maintaining a nuclear arsenal? Any other countries you think would be wise to acquire nuclear weapons to ensure their own security so we don't have to provide it for them? Why did we even bother with setting up NATO in the first place? Just giving EVERY country nuclear weapons would have done the trick, no?
We set up NATO to defend western Europe, not to absorb most of the old USSR right up to the Russian border.
If states from the old USSR had nuclear weapons and wished to keep them to preserve their own security, like Ukraine, they should have been able to do so.
If Taiwan wishes to get nuclear weapons to warn off China, it should be able to as well
I'm also No to War in Ukraine. The tankies are a small but noisy voice on the left. I'd be more concerned by their influence on the right just now.
The only person that wants war in Ukraine is Putin.
He must lose.
Well yes. I can spot on agree with that. However, I would gently point out your posting of anti- German anti -left stuff isn't exactly helping with that.
I haven't posted anything "anti German" since they belatedly joined in, except for one post saying they'd taken their damned time.
I haven't applauded them for joining in though, and they deserve it. I'm fucking delighted they're catching up and they seem to have brought the Swedes with them.
Bravo!
Also, I never posted anything anti German at all.
I complained that the Germans thought they should have a special status shielding them from protecting Ukraine BECAUSE THEY RAPED IT EIGHTY YEARS AGO FFS!!!
Luckily they've seen sense.
Maybe that was unfair of me. But it seemed a little unfair to go apeshit that they hadn't ripped up 70 years of policy in 48 hours. Being as how they have a totally new government and all.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
Had Ukraine kept its own nuclear arsenal then it would have ensured its own security, giving up that was also a major mistake
So you think that the West should have been quite happy with Ukraine maintaining a nuclear arsenal? Any other countries you think would be wise to acquire nuclear weapons to ensure their own security so we don't have to provide it for them? Why did we even bother with setting up NATO in the first place? Just giving EVERY country nuclear weapons would have done the trick, no?
We set up NATO to defend western Europe, not to absorb most of the old USSR right up to the Russian border.
If states from the old USSR had nuclear weapons and wished to keep them to preserve their own security, like Ukraine, they should have been able to do so.
An interesting viewpoint from one who strives to avoid WW3 and nuclear holocaust at all costs.
Nuclear non-proliferation (outside of the 5 UN security council powers) obviously a dead end as far as you're concerned?
Others i believe take the view that proliferation of nuclear weapons to any country that wants them for their own defence is a bit of a risky business.
'"I speak from a deep knowledge of history and human nature...my concern is humanity as a whole...many posters on here are superficial" in The fog of war – politicalbetting.com Comment by PJohnson February 27'
I'm also No to War in Ukraine. The tankies are a small but noisy voice on the left. I'd be more concerned by their influence on the right just now.
The only person that wants war in Ukraine is Putin.
He must lose.
Well yes. I can spot on agree with that. However, I would gently point out your posting of anti- German anti -left stuff isn't exactly helping with that.
I haven't posted anything "anti German" since they belatedly joined in, except for one post saying they'd taken their damned time.
I haven't applauded them for joining in though, and they deserve it. I'm fucking delighted they're catching up and they seem to have brought the Swedes with them.
Bravo!
Also, I never posted anything anti German at all.
I complained that the Germans thought they should have a special status shielding them from protecting Ukraine BECAUSE THEY RAPED IT EIGHTY YEARS AGO FFS!!!
Luckily they've seen sense.
Maybe that was unfair of me. But it seemed a little unfair to go apeshit that they hadn't ripped up 70 years of policy in 48 hours. Being as how they have a totally new government and all.
It might have seemed unfair, but it does seem they agree with me 48 hours later.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
Had Ukraine kept its own nuclear arsenal then it would have ensured its own security, giving up that was also a major mistake
So you think that the West should have been quite happy with Ukraine maintaining a nuclear arsenal? Any other countries you think would be wise to acquire nuclear weapons to ensure their own security so we don't have to provide it for them? Why did we even bother with setting up NATO in the first place? Just giving EVERY country nuclear weapons would have done the trick, no?
We set up NATO to defend western Europe, not to absorb most of the old USSR right up to the Russian border.
If states from the old USSR had nuclear weapons and wished to keep them to preserve their own security, like Ukraine, they should have been able to do so.
If Taiwan wishes to get nuclear weapons to warn off China, it should be able to as well
Things change. The world was not static for 65 years. Hence organisations adapt to cope with new situations.
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
Had Ukraine kept its own nuclear arsenal then it would have ensured its own security, giving up that was also a major mistake
So you think that the West should have been quite happy with Ukraine maintaining a nuclear arsenal? Any other countries you think would be wise to acquire nuclear weapons to ensure their own security so we don't have to provide it for them? Why did we even bother with setting up NATO in the first place? Just giving EVERY country nuclear weapons would have done the trick, no?
We set up NATO to defend western Europe, not to absorb most of the old USSR right up to the Russian border.
If states from the old USSR had nuclear weapons and wished to keep them to preserve their own security, like Ukraine, they should have been able to do so.
An interesting viewpoint from one who strives to avoid WW3 and nuclear holocaust at all costs.
Nuclear non-proliferation (outside of the 5 UN security council powers) obviously a dead end as far as you're concerned?
Others i believe take the view that proliferation of nuclear weapons to any country that wants them for their own defence is a bit of a risky business.
Up to them to sort out how they wanted to defend themselves, NATO should have stuck to defending western Europe and at most Eastern Europe not tried to expand to include most of the old USSR
Has Boris sent troops and planes into Ukraine yet? No.
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
You are repeatedly failing to distinguish (and lump together) those who are gung-ho for direct UK military involvement in Ukraine, and those challenging your arguments against NATO expansion over the past few years (to the extent that you feel that we bear strong responsibility for Putin allegedly feeling "threatened" and invading Ukraine).
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
Had Ukraine kept its own nuclear arsenal then it would have ensured its own security, giving up that was also a major mistake
So you think that the West should have been quite happy with Ukraine maintaining a nuclear arsenal? Any other countries you think would be wise to acquire nuclear weapons to ensure their own security so we don't have to provide it for them? Why did we even bother with setting up NATO in the first place? Just giving EVERY country nuclear weapons would have done the trick, no?
We set up NATO to defend western Europe, not to absorb most of the old USSR right up to the Russian border.
If states from the old USSR had nuclear weapons and wished to keep them to preserve their own security, like Ukraine, they should have been able to do so.
If Taiwan wishes to get nuclear weapons to warn off China, it should be able to as well
North Korea?
Iran?
Not quite sure what the fuss in 1962 was all about. Seems reasonable for Cuba to have acquired them.
To be clear, I made a typo on the prior post. Here's a quick clarification -
PJohnson and ANY OF HIS Putin dick-licking nature needs to be banned. The IP addresses were revealed by the site staff here earlier today, so this should be no shocker.
While I understand and get that it may be better to toy with them and let them in and distract them, consider it akin to a trojan-horse. While 95%+ of you posting are well-informed enough to see it as nonsense, those READING AND VIEWING this site may NOT.
This constitutes a major risk given the overall situation.
With this in mind, I ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE for PJohnson to be banned. This is part of their disinformation campaign and while the active posters here may not fall for it, some of those reading it MAY.
To be clear, I made a typo on the prior post. Here's a quick clarification -
PJohnson and ANY OF HIS Putin dick-licking nature needs to be banned. The IP addresses were revealed by the site staff here earlier today, so this should be no shocker.
While I understand and get that it may be better to toy with them and let them in and distract them, consider it akin to a trojan-horse. While 95%+ of you posting are well-informed enough to see it as nonsense, those READING AND VIEWING this site may NOT.
This constitutes a major risk given the overall situation.
With this in mind, I ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE for PJohnson to be banned. This is part of their disinformation campaign and while the active posters here may not fall for it, some of those reading it MAY.
To be fair, whilst i don't disagree, i think Mike once posted some evidence that the vast majority of people reading the site don't actually delve into the comments. And those that did would have to read all the ones pointing out he was a troll. It's not difficult to find this stuff all over the internet if you go looking for it.
MIGHT BE RUBBISH BUT STILL CAVEAT IN CASE PEOPLE HAVEN'T HEARD OF TWITTER
Visegrád 24 @visegrad24 · 12s We found that Gazprom funded environmental NGOs that provided ministers to various governments, such as Belgium, which then advocated abandoning nuclear power,
To be clear, I made a typo on the prior post. Here's a quick clarification -
PJohnson and ANY OF HIS Putin dick-licking nature needs to be banned. The IP addresses were revealed by the site staff here earlier today, so this should be no shocker.
While I understand and get that it may be better to toy with them and let them in and distract them, consider it akin to a trojan-horse. While 95%+ of you posting are well-informed enough to see it as nonsense, those READING AND VIEWING this site may NOT.
This constitutes a major risk given the overall situation.
With this in mind, I ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE for PJohnson to be banned. This is part of their disinformation campaign and while the active posters here may not fall for it, some of those reading it MAY.
Ban him and have him replaced by Richard Head or similar. It is an ongoing activity dealing with the (troll) farmed output.
I'm also No to War in Ukraine. The tankies are a small but noisy voice on the left. I'd be more concerned by their influence on the right just now.
The only person that wants war in Ukraine is Putin.
He must lose.
Well yes. I can spot on agree with that. However, I would gently point out your posting of anti- German anti -left stuff isn't exactly helping with that.
I haven't posted anything "anti German" since they belatedly joined in, except for one post saying they'd taken their damned time.
I haven't applauded them for joining in though, and they deserve it. I'm fucking delighted they're catching up and they seem to have brought the Swedes with them.
Bravo!
Also, I never posted anything anti German at all.
I complained that the Germans thought they should have a special status shielding them from protecting Ukraine BECAUSE THEY RAPED IT EIGHTY YEARS AGO FFS!!!
Luckily they've seen sense.
Maybe that was unfair of me. But it seemed a little unfair to go apeshit that they hadn't ripped up 70 years of policy in 48 hours. Being as how they have a totally new government and all.
It might have seemed unfair, but it does seem they agree with me 48 hours later.
OK. Peace out then. The coalescing of the West around this stuff has been great. A true positive. Unisex toilets don't loom as large as they did a week ago. For this much thanks. Dunno what to do about my Mam, mind.
'"I speak from a deep knowledge of history and human nature...my concern is humanity as a whole...many posters on here are superficial" in The fog of war – politicalbetting.com Comment by PJohnson February 27'
Comments
Total bunk, but it's coming surely
https://financials.spreadex.com/en-GB/Login/
https://www.ig.com/uk/welcome-page
Down 1-2% over the weekend depending on market and where you calculate it from. More than normal but nothing substantial yet.
Or not...
https://www.ig.com/uk/indices/markets-indices/ftse-100
Currently down only very slightly.
We're not being asked to stay at home for the sake of Ukraine, and Covid restrictions are unlikely to have deterred a Russian invasion...
NZ property might rally.
Plenty of the younger element in ZANU was pro Grace.
Less so when the tide turned.
"The head of the LPR, Leonid Pasechnik, said that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are beginning to use more serious precision-guided weapons, and frequent shelling of front-line territories has ceased"
https://twitter.com/tass_agency/status/1497972383315025922
That being said, Putin surely will not accept less than both Oblasts being fully recognised, and Ukraine still has substantial control over them (there's been slight progress towards Mariupol, but that's basically it along the entrenched lines).
"Stop thief!"
https://twitter.com/olex_scherba/status/1498023662695419910
(probably not true)
Your "NATO's fault" crowd
Whether or not Putin goes beyond that is purely speculation, if he did try and invade NATO nations then we may have no choice to take military action but for now he is only in Ukraine and it would be reckless in the extreme to try and call Putin's bluff by sending UK troops to war there.
Russia has competitive multi party elections, you may not like that but it does. As for being 'massively and tragically out of your depth' it is you who want to massively increase the chances of our involvement in a nuclear war leading to millions of British deaths and if all you can do is patronise those who disagree then that just reinforces your complete hotheadedness
Hitler was a teetotaller!
Having spent the last 2 general elections actively campaigning against Corbyn I am damned if I am going to be lectured by the likes of you merely because you would rush us headlong into a nuclear war without a second glance!!
On the one hand you say Ukraine has the right to self determination and independence from Russia, on the other hand you say Northern Ireland Protestants and Unionists do not have the right to self determine that they do not want to be a part of the Irish Republic.
So don't you dare lecture me on extremism and nationalism!!!
I know it isn't.really our place. But the words of Billy Bragg ring true.
Which Side are we on?
The BJP aren't a force for good. But are indulged and enabled.
I know you love to toss and turn, and argue interpretations and definitions, but you said the above and it was one of the most shocking things I've ever seen you write. You always mean precisely what you say, you've always been clear about that as a matter of integrity, even if it was an unpopular view.
The same applies here - you believe a pro-Putin pretext, no ifs ands or buts. You may not support him in all things, but you do support him in that view.
That saddens me more than anything else. It's not a desire to pile on or anything of the kind. But you went pro-Putin.
And you want some countries to survive as buffer zones with Russia to keep you safe.
Fuck yourself warship.
Prominent Putin propagandist rages on live TV about losing his Italian villa - which is next to George Clooney's - because of sanctions over Russia's invasion of Ukraine
I'd be more concerned by their influence on the right just now.
You basically think that none of the Baltic states should have been let in, and would have been perfectly content with Russia reabsorbing them into a reconstituted Soviet Union under threat of nuclear war to anyone who had the audacity to try to intervene.
And laughably argue that if those countries did not want to be reabsorbed then all they had to do was invest sufficiently in their own militaries (rather than doing what every other small country has done in history which is seek out alliances with others). And fail to understand that the only way they could have done that effectively would be to develop their own nuclear arsenals.
1. Support the current main advances to Kiev/Kyiv
2. Open a new thrust towards cutting off the city from the West
3. Open a totally new front in the West of the country.
The story is its President Big Hat's equivalent of the VDV, i.e. airborne such as the 38th, 103rd and the usual sprinkling of special operations as much as standard motor rifle (mechanised) units. Whether they drive in or try to fly in, stories have it that we will soon find out.
He must lose.
Just remove it, get rid of it. Don't entertain it. Gone.
NATO was originally created as a defensive organisation to defend Western Europe.
It then expanded to take in East Germany, Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic after the Cold War ended.
It is the expansion of NATO even beyond that to try and absorb the old states of the USSR which has left Russia feeling encircled and threatened and gone way beyond its original aims. That is not a pro Putin statement, it is reality, whether you like it or not that NATO has turned from a defensive organisation to in many Russians eyes, not just Putin's, an aggressive and expansionist organisation
All are sinners, therefore all sins are equal? Nice try.
I don't think we should hope for any sort of regime change or even 'popular' uprising in Russia. No matter how awful the current regime, the one replacing it is, more often than not, worse.
By the way, I know the Hitler comparisons are easy, but I see Putin as more of a Louis XIV type.
P.S. I can't quite figure out if the earlier posts were just being satyrical, but no, Johnson has not been cultivated by Putin. I don't even think Trump was - '45' was just a useful idiot with a fetish for strongmen. If I could pick the most useful politician to the Russian president in the last decade, I would probably say Angela Merkel, whom all wise and sensible commentators and columnists cited as a model for British politicians, at least until the day before yesterday.
But I bet it is having an effect elsewhere.
I'm sorry, HYUFD, I used to respect you no matter that I disagreed with you on plenty. But now you are pushing a Kremlin pre-text for war, proudly and unashamedly.
I know you are not a fan of Putin, but you share his views on that particular matter and I cannot respect that one bit.
I think allowing your stubborness act to lead you to argue points made by the Kremilin as a pretext for war is just plain wrong - if ever there was a time for you to bend, just slightly, and reword what you said so it was not quite so much a Kremlin talking point, this would be it. That would be a sign of strength, not weakness. I know you won't change your view because you never will, you do appear to see any shift, however small, as weakness, but as I go to sleep I find it sad you refuse to see what is there in black and white in what you said. Your true views cannot be unseen. With apologies for being melodramatic, I'm not sure I will look at posts of yours in quite the same way again. I think I need a break, you've quite depressed me. Corbyn managed a statement (one at least) which managed to criticise Russia without giving succour to one of its pretexts.
I haven't applauded them for joining in though, and they deserve it. I'm fucking delighted they're catching up and they seem to have brought the Swedes with them.
Bravo!
The justification to not ban is not valid. Why? Because while those posting on this site may well be well-informed enough to speak against, those READING AND VIEWING this site are far less informed. .
With this in mind, I ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE for PJohnson to be banned. This is part of their disinformation campaign and while the active posters here may not fall for it, some of those reading it MAY.
He has been conflating those criticising his stance on NATO expansion and alleged Putin "justification" for invading Ukraine (blaming a lot of the latter on the former - ie. the West's fault) with claims that we are all desperate to trigger nuclear war.
PJohnson is perfectly entitled to express his view, even if not a popular one, as long as he expresses it in a civil fashion
I'm a Tory, but I've praised Starmer highly throughout...
Do you think my attacks on Putinistas Corbyn and @HYUFD are anti-left?
The change and drive has come from Putin. He has no justification.
He has stated an intent to reclaim NATO members.
Stop him at stage one. If you don't stage 2, 3 and or more follow.
If uou don't stop him the future alternative is potentially far worse.
@AFP
#BREAKING European subsidiary of Russia's Sberbank 'failing or likely to fail': ECB
12:35 AM · Feb 28, 2022"
The broad left of centre is, however, as solid as the broad right of centre. There are exceptions on both sides of course. There has always been a tankie movement on the left. My 80 yo Mother is one. And, yes, I've had the phone call. I think the difference may be that the left has 90 years experience of dealing with a pro - Soviet fringe. Whereas, this whole concept is very new for the broader right. It's become embedded in the GOP before anyone sensible noticed for example.
I do worry that its tentacles ensnare more than most realise.
I complained that the Germans thought they should have a special status shielding them from protecting Ukraine BECAUSE THEY RAPED IT EIGHTY YEARS AGO FFS!!!
Luckily they've seen sense.
If states from the old USSR had nuclear weapons and wished to keep them to preserve their own security, like Ukraine, they should have been able to do so.
If Taiwan wishes to get nuclear weapons to warn off China, it should be able to as well
But it seemed a little unfair to go apeshit that they hadn't ripped up 70 years of policy in 48 hours. Being as how they have a totally new government and all.
Nuclear non-proliferation (outside of the 5 UN security council powers) obviously a dead end as far as you're concerned?
Others i believe take the view that proliferation of nuclear weapons to any country that wants them for their own defence is a bit of a risky business.
'"I speak from a deep knowledge of history and human nature...my concern is humanity as a whole...many posters on here are superficial"
in The fog of war – politicalbetting.com Comment by PJohnson February 27'
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/profile/comments/PJohnson
The world was not static for 65 years. Hence organisations adapt to cope with new situations.
Iran?
Not quite sure what the fuss in 1962 was all about. Seems reasonable for Cuba to have acquired them.
PJohnson and ANY OF HIS Putin dick-licking nature needs to be banned. The IP addresses were revealed by the site staff here earlier today, so this should be no shocker.
While I understand and get that it may be better to toy with them and let them in and distract them, consider it akin to a trojan-horse. While 95%+ of you posting are well-informed enough to see it as nonsense, those READING AND VIEWING this site may NOT.
This constitutes a major risk given the overall situation.
With this in mind, I ACTIVELY ENCOURAGE for PJohnson to be banned. This is part of their disinformation campaign and while the active posters here may not fall for it, some of those reading it MAY.
Visegrád 24
@visegrad24
·
12s
We found that Gazprom funded environmental NGOs that provided ministers to various governments, such as Belgium, which then advocated abandoning nuclear power,
says Dominique Reynié, Institut Fondapol
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1498100000362057728
It is an ongoing activity dealing with the (troll) farmed output.
The coalescing of the West around this stuff has been great. A true positive. Unisex toilets don't loom as large as they did a week ago.
For this much thanks.
Dunno what to do about my Mam, mind.
£15.
All profits go to Ukraine. Email me at my username@gmail.com