Congratulations to Bond Street station [Elizabeth Line] after its first day of operation. The escalators are only 3 steps shorter than the ones at Angel tube station.
When are through trains going to start? That will be a game changer
November 6 - but only Shenfield to Paddington, and Abbey Wood to Reading/Heathrow.
The full timetable comes out next year: Shenfield/Abbey Wood to Reading/Heathrow.
Looking forward to it. It's a nuisance to have to get out at Paddington or Liverpool Street if you have a lot of luggage.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
Ah so what you mean is the ukraine should submit so you can be safe. Why the hell should they when you wouldnt do the same
If it wasn't for supplies of advanced western weapons and supplies to Ukraine, Putin may well have captured Kyiv by Spring.
We have done plenty for Ukraine, we are just not willing to go to WW3 and potentially nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine, only for NATO states
Well as long as they nuke epping its a win
They would only do so having first nuked London, Manchester, Glasgow etc
With the exception of London, Putin wouldn't waste nukes targetting urban population centres, thats not how a nuclear war would be fought
'The apparent targets in the early Seventies were revealed in documents that were released in the National Archives in 2014. The nuclear forces might hit some major cities in the UK. Some notable omissions will be able to avoid the nuclear attack. These cities include names like Oxford, Brighton, and Aberdeen. In the southeast of England, Central London, Dover, Rochester, Gillingham, Chatham, and Maidstone are on the list of towns and cities that are expected to be targeted.
Southampton, Salcombe, Bristol, Reading, Cardiff, and Swansea are also included as they are the naval bases of Portsmouth and Plymouth. When it comes to Midlands, Coventry, Birmingham, Kidderminster, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, and Leicester are considered to be the possible targets.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
So Russia waves its nukes, and the UK and US retreat. Without Russia using them. Just by having them, they win.
Ukraine had them too, but gave them up - on assurances the UK and US and China and Russia would ensure they were never exposed to these very threats. They have been fucked over.
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
If there's an appreciable risk of nuclear annihilation, and that can be avoided, YES. It doesn't have to be fair - your parents should have taught you that sometimes life isn't.
If a bully makes a threat, giving in to him just encourages him to repeat it.
You may not want to accept it, but the person making nuclear threats is the bad guy.
I think the fact that you're using language from films in an argument about the possibility of nuclear conflict is quite infantile. There is very little satisfaction in the certainty that 'we were the good guy' when humanity has been obliterated.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
Ah so what you mean is the ukraine should submit so you can be safe. Why the hell should they when you wouldnt do the same
If it wasn't for supplies of advanced western weapons and supplies to Ukraine, Putin may well have captured Kyiv by Spring.
We have done plenty for Ukraine, we are just not willing to go to WW3 and potentially nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine, only for NATO states
Well as long as they nuke epping its a win
They would only do so having first nuked London, Manchester, Glasgow etc
With the exception of London, Putin wouldn't waste nukes targetting urban population centres, thats not how a nuclear war would be fought
'The apparent targets in the early Seventies were revealed in documents that were released in the National Archives in 2014. The nuclear forces might hit some major cities in the UK. Some notable omissions will be able to avoid the nuclear attack. These cities include names like Oxford, Brighton, and Aberdeen. In the southeast of England, Central London, Dover, Rochester, Gillingham, Chatham, and Maidstone are on the list of towns and cities that are expected to be targeted.
Southampton, Salcombe, Bristol, Reading, Cardiff, and Swansea are also included as they are the naval bases of Portsmouth and Plymouth. When it comes to Midlands, Coventry, Birmingham, Kidderminster, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, and Leicester are considered to be the possible targets.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
So Russia waves its nukes, and the UK and US retreat. Without Russia using them. Just by having them, they win.
Ukraine had them too, but gave them up - on assurances the UK and US and China and Russia would ensure they were never exposed to these very threats. They have been fucked over.
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
If there's an appreciable risk of nuclear annihilation, and that can be avoided, YES. It doesn't have to be fair - your parents should have taught you that sometimes life isn't.
If a bully makes a threat, giving in to him just encourages him to repeat it.
You may not want to accept it, but the person making nuclear threats is the bad guy.
I think the fact that you're using language from films in an argument about the possibility of nuclear conflict is quite infantile. There is very little satisfaction in the certainty that 'we were the good guy' when humanity has been obliterated.
Giving in at the first threat of nuclear conflict ensures it is going to happen. I don't see why you dont understand it. Bully goes back off or I nuke you do, repeat several times. When you finally get to the line where you mean it they wont believe you and here we go canned sunshine raining down. The time to stop them and teach them it wont work is the first time not the ninth
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
So Russia waves its nukes, and the UK and US retreat. Without Russia using them. Just by having them, they win.
Ukraine had them too, but gave them up - on assurances the UK and US and China and Russia would ensure they were never exposed to these very threats. They have been fucked over.
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
If there's an appreciable risk of nuclear annihilation, and that can be avoided, YES. It doesn't have to be fair - your parents should have taught you that sometimes life isn't.
I think that a world in which Western powers assume the position, the moment that a dictator threatens to use nuclear weapons, would be a far more dangerous place to inhabit than a world in which they stand firm.
It would encourage other leaders to threaten, and finally to use, nuclear weapons.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
So only countries with nukes count?
Congratulations! You've just caused a massive round of nuclear proliferation!
For what its worth I think Putin will start world war 3 regardless. From all accounts the man has a terminal illness and I think he is deranged enough to want to take everyone with him
Bob Mugabe was meant to be dying of syphilis 20 years ago - the man is still on his perch isn't he?
What has that to do with anything....someone was rumoured to be dying....from what I heard Putin has been confirmed with a liver disorder and has maybe 5 years. There is a difference between rumours and observation
Mugabe was observed sweating profusely and bejng irrational (and probably other symptoms). Trump was meant to be on the brink because he walked funny. Maybe Putin is not long for this world; maybe he's fit as a flea. It's absurd to make policy on that sort of assumption.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
Ah so what you mean is the ukraine should submit so you can be safe. Why the hell should they when you wouldnt do the same
If it wasn't for supplies of advanced western weapons and supplies to Ukraine, Putin may well have captured Kyiv by Spring.
We have done plenty for Ukraine, we are just not willing to go to WW3 and potentially nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine, only for NATO states
Well as long as they nuke epping its a win
They would only do so having first nuked London, Manchester, Glasgow etc
With the exception of London, Putin wouldn't waste nukes targetting urban population centres, thats not how a nuclear war would be fought
'The apparent targets in the early Seventies were revealed in documents that were released in the National Archives in 2014. The nuclear forces might hit some major cities in the UK. Some notable omissions will be able to avoid the nuclear attack. These cities include names like Oxford, Brighton, and Aberdeen. In the southeast of England, Central London, Dover, Rochester, Gillingham, Chatham, and Maidstone are on the list of towns and cities that are expected to be targeted.
Southampton, Salcombe, Bristol, Reading, Cardiff, and Swansea are also included as they are the naval bases of Portsmouth and Plymouth. When it comes to Midlands, Coventry, Birmingham, Kidderminster, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, and Leicester are considered to be the possible targets.
With cities like Oxford, Brighton and Bristol spared, that could be the perfect springboard for a well-meaning and friendly collection of Greens and Lib Dems to take over the running of the post-nuclear UK.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Putin's appeasers are, in reality, Putin's admirers.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
Ah so what you mean is the ukraine should submit so you can be safe. Why the hell should they when you wouldnt do the same
If it wasn't for supplies of advanced western weapons and supplies to Ukraine, Putin may well have captured Kyiv by Spring.
We have done plenty for Ukraine, we are just not willing to go to WW3 and potentially nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine, only for NATO states
Well as long as they nuke epping its a win
They would only do so having first nuked London, Manchester, Glasgow etc
With the exception of London, Putin wouldn't waste nukes targetting urban population centres, thats not how a nuclear war would be fought
'The apparent targets in the early Seventies were revealed in documents that were released in the National Archives in 2014. The nuclear forces might hit some major cities in the UK. Some notable omissions will be able to avoid the nuclear attack. These cities include names like Oxford, Brighton, and Aberdeen. In the southeast of England, Central London, Dover, Rochester, Gillingham, Chatham, and Maidstone are on the list of towns and cities that are expected to be targeted.
Southampton, Salcombe, Bristol, Reading, Cardiff, and Swansea are also included as they are the naval bases of Portsmouth and Plymouth. When it comes to Midlands, Coventry, Birmingham, Kidderminster, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, and Leicester are considered to be the possible targets.
With cities like Oxford, Brighton and Bristol spared, that could be the perfect springboard for a well-meaning and friendly collection of Greens and Lib Dems to take over the running of the post-nuclear UK.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Putin's appeasers are, in reality, Putin's admirers.
That's the one thing that makes me wonder about my LEAVE vote. I've noticed a lot of Putin's appeasers/admirers seem to also be from the LEAVE side.
Was I played? Should I regret voting to LEAVE? Hmmmmmm....
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
Ah so what you mean is the ukraine should submit so you can be safe. Why the hell should they when you wouldnt do the same
If it wasn't for supplies of advanced western weapons and supplies to Ukraine, Putin may well have captured Kyiv by Spring.
We have done plenty for Ukraine, we are just not willing to go to WW3 and potentially nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine, only for NATO states
Well as long as they nuke epping its a win
They would only do so having first nuked London, Manchester, Glasgow etc
With the exception of London, Putin wouldn't waste nukes targetting urban population centres, thats not how a nuclear war would be fought
'The apparent targets in the early Seventies were revealed in documents that were released in the National Archives in 2014. The nuclear forces might hit some major cities in the UK. Some notable omissions will be able to avoid the nuclear attack. These cities include names like Oxford, Brighton, and Aberdeen. In the southeast of England, Central London, Dover, Rochester, Gillingham, Chatham, and Maidstone are on the list of towns and cities that are expected to be targeted.
Southampton, Salcombe, Bristol, Reading, Cardiff, and Swansea are also included as they are the naval bases of Portsmouth and Plymouth. When it comes to Midlands, Coventry, Birmingham, Kidderminster, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, and Leicester are considered to be the possible targets.
With cities like Oxford, Brighton and Bristol spared, that could be the perfect springboard for a well-meaning and friendly collection of Greens and Lib Dems to take over the running of the post-nuclear UK.
There would certainly be lots of greens around - glowing ones.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
So only countries with nukes count?
Congratulations! You've just caused a massive round of nuclear proliferation!
For what its worth I think Putin will start world war 3 regardless. From all accounts the man has a terminal illness and I think he is deranged enough to want to take everyone with him
Bob Mugabe was meant to be dying of syphilis 20 years ago - the man is still on his perch isn't he?
What has that to do with anything....someone was rumoured to be dying....from what I heard Putin has been confirmed with a liver disorder and has maybe 5 years. There is a difference between rumours and observation
Mugabe was observed sweating profusely and bejng irrational (and probably other symptoms). Trump was meant to be on the brink because he walked funny. Maybe Putin is not long for this world; maybe he's fit as a flea. It's absurd to make policy on that sort of assumption.
That wasnt asking them to make policy it was my opinion on the man.
If he is dying or fit as a flea makes no difference. Giving into him teaches him it works and he will continue to use it and sooner or later the nukes will fly. Nipping it in the bud now and making him realise his threats wont work is the only way.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
Doing nothing in WWI would have meant fighting a war on less advantageous terms, further down the line. The British Empire would not have endured, had we stayed out of it, because Indian nationalism was a growing thing, and African nationalism would have become one a generation or two later.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Putin's appeasers are, in reality, Putin's admirers.
That's the one thing that makes me wonder about my LEAVE vote. I've noticed a lot of Putin's appeasers/admirers seem to also be from the LEAVE side.
Was I played? Should I regret voting to LEAVE? Hmmmmmm....
Putin's admirers are found on both the Far Right, and the Far Left.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Putin's appeasers are, in reality, Putin's admirers.
Given that the vast majority of world nations are pretty much ignoring this conflict, he must have a hell of a lot of admirers.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
So Russia waves its nukes, and the UK and US retreat. Without Russia using them. Just by having them, they win.
Ukraine had them too, but gave them up - on assurances the UK and US and China and Russia would ensure they were never exposed to these very threats. They have been fucked over.
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
If there's an appreciable risk of nuclear annihilation, and that can be avoided, YES. It doesn't have to be fair - your parents should have taught you that sometimes life isn't.
If a bully makes a threat, giving in to him just encourages him to repeat it.
You may not want to accept it, but the person making nuclear threats is the bad guy.
I think the fact that you're using language from films in an argument about the possibility of nuclear conflict is quite infantile. There is very little satisfaction in the certainty that 'we were the good guy' when humanity has been obliterated.
I thought I'd left behind people who thought giving into bullies was a good idea in primary school, yes.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
So Russia waves its nukes, and the UK and US retreat. Without Russia using them. Just by having them, they win.
Ukraine had them too, but gave them up - on assurances the UK and US and China and Russia would ensure they were never exposed to these very threats. They have been fucked over.
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
If there's an appreciable risk of nuclear annihilation, and that can be avoided, YES. It doesn't have to be fair - your parents should have taught you that sometimes life isn't.
If a bully makes a threat, giving in to him just encourages him to repeat it.
You may not want to accept it, but the person making nuclear threats is the bad guy.
I think the fact that you're using language from films in an argument about the possibility of nuclear conflict is quite infantile. There is very little satisfaction in the certainty that 'we were the good guy' when humanity has been obliterated.
I thought I'd left behind people who thought giving into bullies was a good idea in primary school, yes.
There is a reason many called him putinguy1983 for a long time
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Putin's appeasers are, in reality, Putin's admirers.
Given that the vast majority of world nations are pretty much ignoring this conflict, he must have a hell of a lot of admirers.
Last time I looked, the UN voted by 143 - 5 to condemn Russia.
In terms of providing military help to Ukraine, there's no one who can do it better than NATO.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
So Russia waves its nukes, and the UK and US retreat. Without Russia using them. Just by having them, they win.
Ukraine had them too, but gave them up - on assurances the UK and US and China and Russia would ensure they were never exposed to these very threats. They have been fucked over.
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
If there's an appreciable risk of nuclear annihilation, and that can be avoided, YES. It doesn't have to be fair - your parents should have taught you that sometimes life isn't.
If a bully makes a threat, giving in to him just encourages him to repeat it.
You may not want to accept it, but the person making nuclear threats is the bad guy.
I think the fact that you're using language from films in an argument about the possibility of nuclear conflict is quite infantile. There is very little satisfaction in the certainty that 'we were the good guy' when humanity has been obliterated.
I thought I'd left behind people who thought giving into bullies was a good idea in primary school, yes.
Sometimes giving in to bullies is an excellent idea. If there are more of them than there are of you, and they're going to beat the shit out of you, a tactical withdrawal can be wise. You then either tell on them or bring more friends the next time.
As a matter of fact I don't believe in withdrawing support for Ukraine in response to a Russian threat to use nuclear weapons in the conflict. I do however advocate that we take that threat seriously, and use all feasible means to de-escalate the situation. I'm pretty sure most of the world outside of the febrile atmosphere of PB would agree.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
So Russia waves its nukes, and the UK and US retreat. Without Russia using them. Just by having them, they win.
Ukraine had them too, but gave them up - on assurances the UK and US and China and Russia would ensure they were never exposed to these very threats. They have been fucked over.
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
If there's an appreciable risk of nuclear annihilation, and that can be avoided, YES. It doesn't have to be fair - your parents should have taught you that sometimes life isn't.
If a bully makes a threat, giving in to him just encourages him to repeat it.
You may not want to accept it, but the person making nuclear threats is the bad guy.
I think the fact that you're using language from films in an argument about the possibility of nuclear conflict is quite infantile. There is very little satisfaction in the certainty that 'we were the good guy' when humanity has been obliterated.
I thought I'd left behind people who thought giving into bullies was a good idea in primary school, yes.
Sometimes giving in to bullies is an excellent idea. If there are more of them than there are of you, and they're going to beat the shit out of you, a tactical withdrawal can be wise. You then either tell on them or bring more friends the next time.
As a matter of fact I don't believe in withdrawing support for Ukraine in response to a Russian threat to use nuclear weapons in the conflict. I do however advocate that we take that threat seriously, and use all feasible means to de-escalate the situation. I'm pretty sure most of the world outside of the febrile atmosphere of PB would agree.
There is precisely one way to de-escalate the situation - Putin's invading army to fuck off back to its own country.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Putin's appeasers are, in reality, Putin's admirers.
Given that the vast majority of world nations are pretty much ignoring this conflict, he must have a hell of a lot of admirers.
Last time I looked, the UN voted by 143 - 5 to condemn Russia.
In terms of providing military help to Ukraine, there's no one who can do it better than NATO.
Anyone can vote (rightly) to codemn something. Talk is cheap. America, Canada, and Europe are footing this bill, and dealing with the consequences of sanctions. Everyone else is getting on with life.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Putin's appeasers are, in reality, Putin's admirers.
Given that the vast majority of world nations are pretty much ignoring this conflict, he must have a hell of a lot of admirers.
Last time I looked, the UN voted by 143 - 5 to condemn Russia.
In terms of providing military help to Ukraine, there's no one who can do it better than NATO.
Anyone can vote (rightly) to codemn something. Talk is cheap. America, Canada, and Europe are footing this bill, and dealing with the consequences of sanctions. Everyone else is getting on with life.
That's simply not true: countries like Pakistan are being absolutely massacred by the increased cost of energy.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
There's also the complication that the Republicans may win control of both houses of congress in a few days' time. Although of course the president has precedence when it comes to foreign affairs.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
So only countries with nukes count?
Congratulations! You've just caused a massive round of nuclear proliferation!
For what its worth I think Putin will start world war 3 regardless. From all accounts the man has a terminal illness and I think he is deranged enough to want to take everyone with him
Bob Mugabe was meant to be dying of syphilis 20 years ago - the man is still on his perch isn't he?
What has that to do with anything....someone was rumoured to be dying....from what I heard Putin has been confirmed with a liver disorder and has maybe 5 years. There is a difference between rumours and observation
Mugabe was observed sweating profusely and bejng irrational (and probably other symptoms). Trump was meant to be on the brink because he walked funny. Maybe Putin is not long for this world; maybe he's fit as a flea. It's absurd to make policy on that sort of assumption.
That wasnt asking them to make policy it was my opinion on the man.
If he is dying or fit as a flea makes no difference. Giving into him teaches him it works and he will continue to use it and sooner or later the nukes will fly. Nipping it in the bud now and making him realise his threats wont work is the only way.
It amazes me that some otherwise intelligent people have not noticed that giving into a blackmailer never ends well.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
There's also the complication that the Republicans may win control of both houses of congress in a few days' time. Although of course the president has precedence when it comes to foreign affairs.
Sending money without the help of Congress will be tough.
Now, I think there are enough independent minded Senators that losing the Senate is probably not that big a deal. Losing the House of Repreentatives on the other hand might be a big problem.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
There's also the complication that the Republicans may win control of both houses of congress in a few days' time. Although of course the president has precedence when it comes to foreign affairs.
Sending money without the help of Congress will be tough.
Now, I think there are enough independent minded Senators that losing the Senate is probably not that big a deal. Losing the House of Repreentatives on the other hand might be a big problem.
Even the GOP in the House still back sending military aid to Ukraine, just less other types of aid which Europe and Canada can provide instead
Streeting not exactly shining on Newsnight. Refusing to accept a general election risks market instability again.
Nor answering why there wasn't a general election following Blair's transfer to Brown.
Labour's "talent" is very thinly spread - and that will be exposed over the next two years.
You need to rethink that one, because Markets would benefit from a General Election about economic direction in the same way the whole country would right now, it would bring everyone clarity.
Can’t have a General Election because it will definitely cause market instability is not a great argument. Business of governing doesn’t switch off during election campaigns, whilst markets will benefit from UK having a General Election with economic direction over the coming five years front and centre of the debate. It wasn’t “knowledge” of something coming or any clarity which sparked the markets under Truss, more the avoidance of detail, not sharing an OBR, and the on the day surprises in the budget.
Nor is it as straight forward as just give the dammed markets whatever they ask for to keep them happy, because going to war with the markets for the good of our nation is a definite argument in the debate right now, look at tonight’s Telegraph front page - Sunak must put the country before the markets.
A general election is not being held right now for purely political reasons, not economic ones, you are struggling to be honest about that. The markets and business would actually benefit from debate, and the clarity of which argument won that debate.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
There's also the complication that the Republicans may win control of both houses of congress in a few days' time. Although of course the president has precedence when it comes to foreign affairs.
Sending money without the help of Congress will be tough.
Now, I think there are enough independent minded Senators that losing the Senate is probably not that big a deal. Losing the House of Repreentatives on the other hand might be a big problem.
Republican Senators like Romney are more hawkish on Putin than Biden of course and at most the Senate is looking to be close to its current 50 50
It looks like he may rebuild part of the Cameron coalition for the Tories but the Boris coalition is now largely gone for the blues
Don't misread those numbers.
I'm one of those pleased he is PM - instead of the other options. That doesn't mean I'm considering voting Conservative again for even a fraction of a second.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
Exactly. It is a border dispute that should have been sorted out a decade ago by plebiscites, except Ukraine did not want to hold them (because they would have lost land).
It is only on pb.com that it is a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and Evil.
Bollocks. It was settled by plebiscite in the early 1990s. Then Putin came along and wanted to steal bits of a neighbouring country.
Often in war there isn't a clear good and evil.
Here there most certainly is.
The referendum was in 1991, just after the coup against Gorbachev. Things were rather different.
The Crimean Parliament declared Crimea independent of Ukraine in 1992.
You can argue that Crimea *might* have voted to join Russia at some point if they'd had a fair referendum but nothing like that is remotely true of the other regions that Putin started the current war over.
I have absolutely no idea what the result of a referendum in Donetsk might have been.
BTW, how do you know?
Of course, Ukraine could have just held a plebiscite in Donetsk 10 years ago or 5 years ago.
And -- if as you seem to believe -- it would have shown overwhelming support for staying in Ukraine, then that would have been a very powerful argument.
In which case, it is a bit surprising Ukraine never did, no?
How do I know? Well, it's what I've read, and heard directly from someone who grew up in Donbas.
You can also look at support for independence in the 1991 referendum. It seems plausible that Crimea might have gone from 54% pro-Ukraine to 40%-50% during the period when Ukraine was a mess and Russia seemed to be getting its shit together, but it's a lot less plausible that other regions went from numbers like 84% to under 50%.
It's not at all surprising that a country didn't start holding referendums that weren't being demanded by a substantial proportion of the regions in question to remove their territory and give it to another country. I can't think of any case where any country has done this, ever. It's a particularly bad idea if you've got an endemic corruption problem in your regional administration and active interference by a much larger neighbouring power.
HYUFD everyone. Prepared to start a nuclear war with France/Spain over feck knows what, but draws the line at genocide of 44 million people in a faraway land of which we know little.
HYUFD everyone. Prepared to start a nuclear war with France/Spain over feck knows what, but draws the line at genocide of 44 million people in a faraway land of which we know little.
Spain does not have nuclear weapons unlike Russia but we do have a British overseas territory in Gibraltar next door.
Russia has nuclear weapons but no British overseas territory nearby and Ukraine is not even in NATO.
It looks like he may rebuild part of the Cameron coalition for the Tories but the Boris coalition is now largely gone for the blues
Don't misread those numbers.
I'm one of those pleased he is PM - instead of the other options. That doesn't mean I'm considering voting Conservative again for even a fraction of a second.
The other options weren't mentioned, just are you pleased or not he is PM
Currant Bun speculating the Ben Wallace will get his P45 and be replaced by a more vocal backer of Sunak.....lets just hope that's just Currant Bun nonsense.
It looks like he may rebuild part of the Cameron coalition for the Tories but the Boris coalition is now largely gone for the blues
Don't misread those numbers.
I'm one of those pleased he is PM - instead of the other options. That doesn't mean I'm considering voting Conservative again for even a fraction of a second.
The other options weren't mentioned, just are you pleased or not he is PM
And I'm just letting you know how I answered that question and what that means. I may be alone in that view, but I am sure some percentage answered like me.
Isabel Oakeshott @IsabelOakeshott · 13m Literally hundreds of people joined @reformparty_uk today. Presumably they’re former Tory supporters who no longer feel that the Conservatives are conservative. Bye bye red wall……
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
What a ridiculously prejudiced statement. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Truss made it an issue in the summer, there is no doubt Zelensky preferred Boris and Truss in charge to Rishi
India is taking a largely neutral position on it, most British Asians I know don't want to get too involved
Even if that is so, for sake of argument, it does not follow that Rishi Sunak is less gung-ho because he is British Asian - he's not a typical person of any type for a start, hence why he is Prime Minister.
He might not be as robust on Ukraine as Boris or Truss, we shall see, but I am very confident his skin colour won't be why.
Think what you want but heritage does affect outlook on the world somewhat, Obama too was less focused on Europe in foreign policy than previous Presidents
Streeting not exactly shining on Newsnight. Refusing to accept a general election risks market instability again.
Nor answering why there wasn't a general election following Blair's transfer to Brown.
Labour's "talent" is very thinly spread - and that will be exposed over the next two years.
You need to rethink that one, because Markets would benefit from a General Election about economic direction in the same way the whole country would right now, it would bring everyone clarity.
Can’t have a General Election because it will definitely cause market instability is not a great argument. Business of governing doesn’t switch off during election campaigns, whilst markets will benefit from UK having a General Election with economic direction over the coming five years front and centre of the debate. It wasn’t “knowledge” of something coming or any clarity which sparked the markets under Truss, more the avoidance of detail, not sharing an OBR, and the on the day surprises in the budget.
Nor is it as straight forward as just give the dammed markets whatever they ask for to keep them happy, because going to war with the markets for the good of our nation is a definite argument in the debate right now, look at tonight’s Telegraph front page - Sunak must put the country before the markets.
A general election is not being held right now for purely political reasons, not economic ones, you are struggling to be honest about that. The markets and business would actually benefit from debate, and the clarity of which argument won that debate.
If the basis of your argument is everything was just fine until Russia turned off the gas and Liz Truss tanked the economy, you are from an alternative reality from the one where I am piecing together an holistic puzzle for lessons learned. Here’s a lessoned learned for the first day of Sunak’s premiership - A country and economy so feeble it cannot withstand an interest rate of one or two per cent barely deserves the name. From about the turn of the century, the Fin de Siècle of the Conservative Century, the UK economy became like an alcoholic, every drop in interest rates and every bout of money-printing made it feel better in the short-term, but made the addiction worse, and the beast is now slowly dying with us in the belly of it!
Excuse me a second - yes, just another five minutes I’ll put the pad down, I’m nearly done for now - I owe an army of fans hanging on my every word for enlightenment.
Gilt yields rising above 4 per cent was not high by the standard of the 20th century. For this reason I didn’t believe Labour Party and media spending a fortnight treating every day as if it were Black Wednesday, more fool you if your a mug who believed that, because if it’s true as a nation and economy we cannot live with the sort of interest rates, gilt markets we lived with through last century, we ought to turn the lights out right now and just lie there in the dark.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
What a ridiculously prejudiced statement. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Truss made it an issue in the summer, there is no doubt Zelensky preferred Boris and Truss in charge to Rishi
India is taking a largely neutral position on it, most British Asians I know don't want to get too involved
Even if that is so, for sake of argument, it does not follow that Rishi Sunak is less gung-ho because he is British Asian - he's not a typical person of any type for a start, hence why he is Prime Minister.
He might not be as robust on Ukraine as Boris or Truss, we shall see, but I am very confident his skin colour won't be why.
An important point raised here though. We know precious little of his opinions out with the economy. Has there ever been a PM that was more of a blank canvas?
I'm pretty confident there will have been a few, since many will have been deliberately bland and malleable in their opinions. Plus when they were appointed by the monarch more directly some might have been obscure to anyone not in the know.
But part of why he is a blank canvas is he has only been an MP for 7 years, which is a very short time to become PM, and he has been a junior minister or higher for all but 2.5 years of that, so he's not really been in a position where he would reveal his views, hence leaks about where he stood on covid and the like.
He's only been a Cabinet Minister for less than 3 years, he has to be one of the least experienced PMs we've had in a long time.
"We have betrayed Salman Rushdie once again Just two months on from the Islamist attempt on his life, everyone seems to have forgotten about it. Tom Slater"
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Don’t you get bored repeating the same shit week after week after week?
Just because you crap yourself several times a day, we can’t ignore reality
“Nigel Gould-Davies, a senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia and the International Institute for Strategic Affairs, commented on Twitter: “It’s Russia that is escalating: attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, apparent attacks on western connectivity infrastructure, and mining of Novaya Kakhovka dam. And playing with nuclear fire in Zaporizhzhiya [nuclear power plant] for months.
“So [it’s] hard to see these calls as anything other than Shoigu either doubling down on Putin’s bluffs, or preparing way for Russian nuclear use. Yes, nuclear (ie fission [rather than a dirty bomb]). A dirty bomb would breach nuclear taboo but not achieve significant effects.”
He added: “I worry there is too much motivated reasoning in dismissing possible Russian nuclear use. We don’t want it to happen, and/or we don’t see the point, therefore it won’t. But Russia faces logic of dwindling choices as it loses. Escalation of all kinds more likely.””
It’s not a question of ignoring reality. It’s more a question of ignoring you. You’re boring. How many times have you told us over the last few weeks “Looks like Russia is close to going nuclear”? Okay, we get it. Try mixing it up a bit with a new spin. Even make the prose a little more readable. Anything. It’s hard to make a forthcoming apocalypse dull - but somehow you manage it.
Ok. How about this. Yesterday I crossed the border at Nogales with my mates, we went for a brunch in an old Mexican cantina and drank about seventeen pints of margarita and then we went to a bar and did shots for several hours and then we went to another bar and I bought some weird peppercorns from a Mexican and then we came back to the ranch and we were all so drunk we dived into this swimming pool with our clothes on
And then as we all dried out by the fire my host - who served 15 years in military intelligence in Iraq and Afghanistan (and whose grandpa was US Ambassador to xxx - so he is super well informed) - said to me “I think Putin is going to go nuclear or blow up that dam. Or both”
Well of course he is going to blow that dam (or at least try to). That much is f**king obvious
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
What a ridiculously prejudiced statement. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Truss made it an issue in the summer, there is no doubt Zelensky preferred Boris and Truss in charge to Rishi
India is taking a largely neutral position on it, most British Asians I know don't want to get too involved
Even if that is so, for sake of argument, it does not follow that Rishi Sunak is less gung-ho because he is British Asian - he's not a typical person of any type for a start, hence why he is Prime Minister.
He might not be as robust on Ukraine as Boris or Truss, we shall see, but I am very confident his skin colour won't be why.
Think what you want but heritage does affect outlook on the world somewhat, Obama too was less focused on Europe in foreign policy than previous Presidents
"We have betrayed Salman Rushdie once again Just two months on from the Islamist attempt on his life, everyone seems to have forgotten about it. Tom Slater"
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
What a ridiculously prejudiced statement. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Truss made it an issue in the summer, there is no doubt Zelensky preferred Boris and Truss in charge to Rishi
India is taking a largely neutral position on it, most British Asians I know don't want to get too involved
Even if that is so, for sake of argument, it does not follow that Rishi Sunak is less gung-ho because he is British Asian - he's not a typical person of any type for a start, hence why he is Prime Minister.
He might not be as robust on Ukraine as Boris or Truss, we shall see, but I am very confident his skin colour won't be why.
Think what you want but heritage does affect outlook on the world somewhat, Obama too was less focused on Europe in foreign policy than previous Presidents
Eewh!
When in a hole stop digging
Obama did pivot US foreign policy to Asia
Because he believed it was the right strategy.
Not because of his “heritage”
Which - for the avoidance of doubt - was as an American not a Kenyan.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Agreed.
The "Putin launches a tactical nuke" scenario is functioning in some minds, though, in too congealed a way. The turning point after which one might as well consider WW3 inevitable would come before then. For a while now, the coolest armageddo-kids have been talking about the possible use of a radiological weapon ("dirty bomb"), which counts as both non-conventional (alongside chemical, bio, and nukes) and, in USA parlance, a "weapon of mass destruction", providing the R in "CBRN". Russia took this scenario to the UNSC. The notion was that the Ukrainian side would detonate a dirty bomb and blame the Russian side. For C background, see Syria; for R, see the war in Chechnya and incidents both in Chechnya itself and Moscow in the late 1990s.
He isn't PM until tomorrow and any change in polling will take time
Let's see where we are next April/ May
The nation gave Truss 40 days. Things move quickly these days. I can't recall you asking for more time for Truss.
Truss behaviour and mini budget condemned her in days
Sunak/ Hunt combination has steadied the markets and been welcomed especially the bond market
Next Monday is Hunt's statement produced alongside the OBR which will be responsible and I expect substantial energy and bank windfall taxes
Johnson is gone and my relief is palpable, and I expect a very different government going forward
You do realise Sunak worked quite happily for Johnson and presided over the creation of the economic problems we now face. You can blame Truss for many things, but she just lit the touch paper on the charges that Sunak had laid before she entered no10.
Sunak was the architect of the hugely successful furlough scheme and in case you have forgotten introduced a windfall tax on energy
You clearly do not like him but maybe opposition supporters protest too much, as they see a very different decent and honest PM taking the fight to labour
I just think you are glad that you got anyone but Boris. I don't blame you. But dig a little deeper and there are a few question marks over Sunak.
Silly, a few question marks is as good as it gets with any politician. Boris and Liz, there were no question marks at all. Just !s.
You are butt hurt because SKS is going to have to work a lot harder. Me, I am rejoicing not as a Tory, W*k*h*m*st, or Oxford man but as a citoyen du Royaume Uni that Borliz iz history.
Guessing you were at a house, @Ishmael_Z , rather than Coll. Am I right? Whether house or Coll, starting what year? (Asking for a friend.)
Got to observe that at least Sunak didn't go to New. Imagine having a double W as PM.
He isn't PM until tomorrow and any change in polling will take time
Let's see where we are next April/ May
The nation gave Truss 40 days. Things move quickly these days. I can't recall you asking for more time for Truss.
Truss behaviour and mini budget condemned her in days
Sunak/ Hunt combination has steadied the markets and been welcomed especially the bond market
Next Monday is Hunt's statement produced alongside the OBR which will be responsible and I expect substantial energy and bank windfall taxes
Johnson is gone and my relief is palpable, and I expect a very different government going forward
You do realise Sunak worked quite happily for Johnson and presided over the creation of the economic problems we now face. You can blame Truss for many things, but she just lit the touch paper on the charges that Sunak had laid before she entered no10.
Sunak was the architect of the hugely successful furlough scheme and in case you have forgotten introduced a windfall tax on energy
You clearly do not like him but maybe opposition supporters protest too much, as they see a very different decent and honest PM taking the fight to labour
I just think you are glad that you got anyone but Boris. I don't blame you. But dig a little deeper and there are a few question marks over Sunak.
Silly, a few question marks is as good as it gets with any politician. Boris and Liz, there were no question marks at all. Just !s.
You are butt hurt because SKS is going to have to work a lot harder. Me, I am rejoicing not as a Tory, W*k*h*m*st, or Oxford man but as a citoyen du Royaume Uni that Borliz iz history.
Guessing you were at a house, @Ishmael_Z , rather than Coll. Am I right? Whether house or Coll, starting what year? (Asking for a friend.)
Got to observe that at least Sunak didn't go to New. Imagine having a double W as PM.
The reality of the situation in Ukraine is that it probably isn't currently in the US/western interest to make any deal with Russia. The aim should be to just keep on inflicting maximum damage to Russian military capability, so it just gets harder and harder for Russia to pursue the conflict. Psychologically the war is working well. Gradually the 'myths' about the greatness of Russia and the justice of the conflict will be revealed as a sham. Particularly given the fate of the conscripts. The trouble is that if you have a 'peace deal', then you will have to start again in a few years time and you will be back to square one. Russia has to be faced with a resolve greater than its own, and that is what it is encountering in Ukraine.
You believe that ideas about the greatness of Russia and the just nature of the war are being eroded in Russia's military and civilian populations, and that Russia is on its way to being defeated in a war of attrition - am I right?
Making the enemy stop fighting is the aim of all war.
Clearly there is a proportion of the population who are sceptical about Putin's myths about Russian greatness otherwise why would people be fleeing the country. Others are accepting that they need to go as their duty but they are then being grossly let down by the Russian state on every level. The incompetence is clear to see, the video evidence is damning. I don't see how this could not have a psychological impact on a population that diminishes enthusiasm for the war.
Thank you for posting your reasoning. Note that the notion of Russian "greatness" is much older than Putin, as is the usually justified belief in Russia that state officials tend to be corrupt lying slobs. (But people in Ukraine expect the same.) I'm sure the western and Ukrainian psywar efforts have had some effects in Russia, and it's in the nature of a psywar campaign that the effects are often unknown, or only dimly known, even to those who are running it. The base level of the population viewing the armed forces as "our boys", though, is much higher than in say Britain, as is the resilience of the population to hardship, which is connected with Russian Orthodoxy as well as with cultural memory of WW2, or the Great Patriotic War as it's called in Russia, and famines and horrendous levels of destruction and slaughter in parts of Russia and Ukraine and Belarus that are still in "living" memory in the sense of "my grandmother lived through that and told me about it". And you have to compare all of this speculation about Russia with how things are on the Ukrainian side. Ukraine has had martial law now for a long time, and it has banned service-age males from leaving the country, and many have fled. How is enthusiasm for the war going in Lvov, Kiev, or Dnipro? How many consider it worth continuing to make sacrifices so that the lost territory can be regained? I don't know, but wouldn't rely on Youtube etc. to form an opinion. As for Zelensky's popularity rating, it's unlikely to be sky-high, to put it mildly.
He isn't PM until tomorrow and any change in polling will take time
Let's see where we are next April/ May
The nation gave Truss 40 days. Things move quickly these days. I can't recall you asking for more time for Truss.
Truss behaviour and mini budget condemned her in days
Sunak/ Hunt combination has steadied the markets and been welcomed especially the bond market
Next Monday is Hunt's statement produced alongside the OBR which will be responsible and I expect substantial energy and bank windfall taxes
Johnson is gone and my relief is palpable, and I expect a very different government going forward
You do realise Sunak worked quite happily for Johnson and presided over the creation of the economic problems we now face. You can blame Truss for many things, but she just lit the touch paper on the charges that Sunak had laid before she entered no10.
Sunak was the architect of the hugely successful furlough scheme and in case you have forgotten introduced a windfall tax on energy
You clearly do not like him but maybe opposition supporters protest too much, as they see a very different decent and honest PM taking the fight to labour
I just think you are glad that you got anyone but Boris. I don't blame you. But dig a little deeper and there are a few question marks over Sunak.
Silly, a few question marks is as good as it gets with any politician. Boris and Liz, there were no question marks at all. Just !s.
You are butt hurt because SKS is going to have to work a lot harder. Me, I am rejoicing not as a Tory, W*k*h*m*st, or Oxford man but as a citoyen du Royaume Uni that Borliz iz history.
Guessing you were at a house, @Ishmael_Z , rather than Coll. Am I right? Whether house or Coll, starting what year? (Asking for a friend.)
Got to observe that at least Sunak didn't go to New. Imagine having a double W as PM.
He isn't PM until tomorrow and any change in polling will take time
Let's see where we are next April/ May
The nation gave Truss 40 days. Things move quickly these days. I can't recall you asking for more time for Truss.
Truss behaviour and mini budget condemned her in days
Sunak/ Hunt combination has steadied the markets and been welcomed especially the bond market
Next Monday is Hunt's statement produced alongside the OBR which will be responsible and I expect substantial energy and bank windfall taxes
Johnson is gone and my relief is palpable, and I expect a very different government going forward
You do realise Sunak worked quite happily for Johnson and presided over the creation of the economic problems we now face. You can blame Truss for many things, but she just lit the touch paper on the charges that Sunak had laid before she entered no10.
Sunak was the architect of the hugely successful furlough scheme and in case you have forgotten introduced a windfall tax on energy
You clearly do not like him but maybe opposition supporters protest too much, as they see a very different decent and honest PM taking the fight to labour
I just think you are glad that you got anyone but Boris. I don't blame you. But dig a little deeper and there are a few question marks over Sunak.
Silly, a few question marks is as good as it gets with any politician. Boris and Liz, there were no question marks at all. Just !s.
You are butt hurt because SKS is going to have to work a lot harder. Me, I am rejoicing not as a Tory, W*k*h*m*st, or Oxford man but as a citoyen du Royaume Uni that Borliz iz history.
Guessing you were at a house, @Ishmael_Z , rather than Coll. Am I right? Whether house or Coll, starting what year? (Asking for a friend.)
Got to observe that at least Sunak didn't go to New. Imagine having a double W as PM.
Very few Wykehamists go to New these days
Sure, but Sunak is 42.
It’s been more than 25 years since I left New and it was already the case back then
I think the fact that you're using language from films in an argument about the possibility of nuclear conflict is quite infantile. There is very little satisfaction in the certainty that 'we were the good guy' when humanity has been obliterated.
The whole posture of the Russophobe Chickenhawks on here is marked by a childlike retreat to certainty that frames the conflict in terms of good/evil, right/wrong, Red Bull/Monster.
Streeting not exactly shining on Newsnight. Refusing to accept a general election risks market instability again.
Nor answering why there wasn't a general election following Blair's transfer to Brown.
Labour's "talent" is very thinly spread - and that will be exposed over the next two years.
You need to rethink that one, because Markets would benefit from a General Election about economic direction in the same way the whole country would right now, it would bring everyone clarity.
Can’t have a General Election because it will definitely cause market instability is not a great argument. Business of governing doesn’t switch off during election campaigns, whilst markets will benefit from UK having a General Election with economic direction over the coming five years front and centre of the debate. It wasn’t “knowledge” of something coming or any clarity which sparked the markets under Truss, more the avoidance of detail, not sharing an OBR, and the on the day surprises in the budget.
Nor is it as straight forward as just give the dammed markets whatever they ask for to keep them happy, because going to war with the markets for the good of our nation is a definite argument in the debate right now, look at tonight’s Telegraph front page - Sunak must put the country before the markets.
A general election is not being held right now for purely political reasons, not economic ones, you are struggling to be honest about that. The markets and business would actually benefit from debate, and the clarity of which argument won that debate.
A general election is not being held right now because a Government with a nominal majority of c70 has a Prime Minister who could govern for a little over 2 more years without upsetting any constitutional apple carts.
I get that opponents of the Tories want them to piss off, but that is not enough. If people still want them gone in two years, they will be gone. But they still have two years to demonstrate that they can deliver on a manifesto that was blown massively off course by Covid and war in Europe. Boris Johnson and then briefly Liz Truss have been found unable to deliver; Rishi Sunak still has ample time to demonstrate he is the man for the job. He could surprise on both the up and downside. But he has every right to take the full two years before offering himself to the judgment of the voters.
Obviously, if his Party fractures and he loses that c70 seat majority, that is a different circumstance. If he cannot command the authority of the House, and nobody else can, we have an election. Otherwise, not until the clock runs out.
I think the fact that you're using language from films in an argument about the possibility of nuclear conflict is quite infantile. There is very little satisfaction in the certainty that 'we were the good guy' when humanity has been obliterated.
The whole posture of the Russophobe Chickenhawks on here is marked by a childlike retreat to certainty that frames the conflict in terms of good/evil, right/wrong, Red Bull/Monster.
As opposed to your child-like retreat into the infallibility of the Russian armed forces, expressed from day one as a belief that the numbers claimed by the Ukrainians were orders of magnitudes of bullshit. No apologies for that are ever offered....
I think the fact that you're using language from films in an argument about the possibility of nuclear conflict is quite infantile. There is very little satisfaction in the certainty that 'we were the good guy' when humanity has been obliterated.
The whole posture of the Russophobe Chickenhawks on here is marked by a childlike retreat to certainty that frames the conflict in terms of good/evil, right/wrong, Red Bull/Monster.
And yet, for all your self-proclaimed sophistication, you’ve consistently called this one wrong.
Let’s put it simply. Putin is a bad man. He will consistently push for more and more of what he wants. It is in our strategic interests that he is stopped - we’ve proved over the last decade and more that appeasement doesn’t work. And if the price of stopping him is paid in someone else’s blood then so be it.
Listening to Faisal Islam on the BBC’s newscast - he had this fascinating and (I think) disturbing nugget;
“By all accounts (Sunak at the treasury during the pandemic) it was, not quite minority report, but like, big screens of all the policy options and all the other countries policy options… Germany had done this on their version of the furlough scheme, or France had done that, and he would want to make sure that he could say we’ve done the most in Europe … so you just had to look at what the G7 record was and then you could say, well, he’s going to go to 80%, because it’s higher than 77%”
That’s our bloody national debt that you’ve ramped up, just so you can gain some stupid imaginary brexit points.
And now the country must pay for your idiocy, with higher mortgage rates, tax increases, and spending cuts?
I don’t buy the fiscally dry, sound money persona he’s trying to portray. It was him spaffing cash up the wall that is the primary reason we’re now in one hell of a fiscal mess.
Why should we suffer for his sins?
I’m amazed that the otherwise sensible sound money PB tories are falling for his guff.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
Doing nothing in WWI would have meant fighting a war on less advantageous terms, further down the line. The British Empire would not have endured, had we stayed out of it, because Indian nationalism was a growing thing, and African nationalism would have become one a generation or two later.
France almost certainly would have been defeated if we hadn't fought. We would have faced a hostile power occupying northern France, the low countries and Channel ports, with a sizeable navy, which would have been able to directly threaten our safety and security in these islands at any time.
WW1 was terrible but we had to fight to avoid an even worse outcome.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
Exactly. It is a border dispute that should have been sorted out a decade ago by plebiscites, except Ukraine did not want to hold them (because they would have lost land).
It is only on pb.com that it is a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and Evil.
Bollocks. It was settled by plebiscite in the early 1990s. Then Putin came along and wanted to steal bits of a neighbouring country.
Often in war there isn't a clear good and evil.
Here there most certainly is.
The referendum was in 1991, just after the coup against Gorbachev. Things were rather different.
The Crimean Parliament declared Crimea independent of Ukraine in 1992.
You can argue that Crimea *might* have voted to join Russia at some point if they'd had a fair referendum but nothing like that is remotely true of the other regions that Putin started the current war over.
I have absolutely no idea what the result of a referendum in Donetsk might have been.
BTW, how do you know?
Of course, Ukraine could have just held a plebiscite in Donetsk 10 years ago or 5 years ago.
And -- if as you seem to believe -- it would have shown overwhelming support for staying in Ukraine, then that would have been a very powerful argument.
In which case, it is a bit surprising Ukraine never did, no?
Gosh should wales hold a plebiscite because ireland claims it would rather be irish. There was no push in crimea or donetsk for a referendum
Don't be ridiculous. Crimea declared itself independent in 1991. There have been ongoing problems in Donetsk for at least a decade. At minimum, a sizeable fraction of the population (perhaps < 50 per cent, perhaps > 50 per cent, I don't know) wanted Donetsk to join Russia.
There was a window when this could have been sorted out by plebiscites (not now, I agree).
Ukraine should have done so.
Crimea did not declare itself independent in 1991. I think you’re getting confused over the 1992 declaration of full autonomy as the Republic of Crimea.
In 1995 a separatist leader did get elected to the post of President and started trying to seize power for himself. As a result the Ukrainian Parliament deposed him and imposed a new constitution on Crimea.
You also don’t appear to understand the relevant situation. First, according to the Constitution of Ukraine its territory can only be altered with the consent of a nationwide plebiscite. So even if Crimea had voted 9-1 to join Russia in its 2014 referendum it would still have been unlawful and irrelevant (and btw, despite the official results the best the Russians could likely have hoped for given the ethnic makeup of the peninsula is around 50/50. It was not overwhelmingly Russian).
As for Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia, there just wasn’t any demand for a referendum because there was pro-Russian sentiment but no desire to leave Ukraine. It would be the equivalent of holding a referendum in Liverpool on joining Ireland because Northern Ireland did.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
I would have opposed WW1, which was the genisis of both the political circumstances and the individual circumstances that lead to Hitler's rise to power. Saving countless millions of lives in the 20th century.
We should have come to a compromise with the Kaiser and avoided WW1 at all costs. That was the big mistake.
There is nothing that could have been offered to the Kaiser that could have persuaded him to avoid war, and it was not our mistake that he launched one.
He actually wanted a war. Not territory, although he expected to gain it. Not money or prestige, although he wanted those to. A war. With people fighting and getting killed.
He had made the decision for a war in either 1914 or 1915 as long ago as 1908 when he had finished widening the Kiel Canal. If we hadn’t fought, the result would have been the conquest of France, Belgium and Serbia and the genocide of their civilian populations anyway. Plus, later, a direct attack on Britain who would now have been without allies. Not some mythical better world where shit didn’t happen.
It is scary how much historical ignorance is being displayed in this conversation to suit frankly insupportable political views.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
Doing nothing in WWI would have meant fighting a war on less advantageous terms, further down the line. The British Empire would not have endured, had we stayed out of it, because Indian nationalism was a growing thing, and African nationalism would have become one a generation or two later.
Neither of those theories is overhwhelmingly plausible. And it's right that in the course of time India and Africa would have been independent, but it might have evolved in a more advantageous way, and certainly without the crushing waste of life, money, and material resources entailed by the world wars.
Comments
Southampton, Salcombe, Bristol, Reading, Cardiff, and Swansea are also included as they are the naval bases of Portsmouth and Plymouth. When it comes to Midlands, Coventry, Birmingham, Kidderminster, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, and Leicester are considered to be the possible targets.
Some other potential targets that are under threat include Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Huddersfield, Leeds, Hull, and York. Newcastle and Sunderland are also on the list.'
https://brusselsmorning.com/list-of-all-cities-subject-to-possible-nuclear-strike/27248/
Insane people don't act rationally especially if they're hoping to take humanity to heaven (or hell) with them...
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1584639389316939776?
It would encourage other leaders to threaten, and finally to use, nuclear weapons.
Was I played? Should I regret voting to LEAVE? Hmmmmmm....
If he is dying or fit as a flea makes no difference. Giving into him teaches him it works and he will continue to use it and sooner or later the nukes will fly. Nipping it in the bud now and making him realise his threats wont work is the only way.
If he's bluffing, then appeasing him will only encourage him.
In terms of providing military help to Ukraine, there's no one who can do it better than NATO.
As a matter of fact I don't believe in withdrawing support for Ukraine in response to a Russian threat to use nuclear weapons in the conflict. I do however advocate that we take that threat seriously, and use all feasible means to de-escalate the situation. I'm pretty sure most of the world outside of the febrile atmosphere of PB would agree.
44% of middle class ABC1s are pleased he is PM, 40% disappointed.
Only 31% of working class C2DEs are pleased he is PM however, 43% disappointed
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2022/10/24/94179/1
It looks like he may rebuild part of the Cameron coalition for the Tories but the Boris coalition is now largely gone for the blues
Now, I think there are enough independent minded Senators that losing the Senate is probably not that big a deal. Losing the House of Repreentatives on the other hand might be a big problem.
Can’t have a General Election because it will definitely cause market instability is not a great argument. Business of governing doesn’t switch off during election campaigns, whilst markets will benefit from UK having a General Election with economic direction over the coming five years front and centre of the debate. It wasn’t “knowledge” of something coming or any clarity which sparked the markets under Truss, more the avoidance of detail, not sharing an OBR, and the on the day surprises in the budget.
Nor is it as straight forward as just give the dammed markets whatever they ask for to keep them happy, because going to war with the markets for the good of our nation is a definite argument in the debate right now, look at tonight’s Telegraph front page - Sunak must put the country before the markets.
A general election is not being held right now for purely political reasons, not economic ones, you are struggling to be honest about that. The markets and business would actually benefit from debate, and the clarity of which argument won that debate.
I'm one of those pleased he is PM - instead of the other options. That doesn't mean I'm considering voting Conservative again for even a fraction of a second.
Also there's some polling, for instance this at the height of Ukraine's basketcase-ness:
https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=news&id=258
You can also look at support for independence in the 1991 referendum. It seems plausible that Crimea might have gone from 54% pro-Ukraine to 40%-50% during the period when Ukraine was a mess and Russia seemed to be getting its shit together, but it's a lot less plausible that other regions went from numbers like 84% to under 50%.
It's not at all surprising that a country didn't start holding referendums that weren't being demanded by a substantial proportion of the regions in question to remove their territory and give it to another country. I can't think of any case where any country has done this, ever. It's a particularly bad idea if you've got an endemic corruption problem in your regional administration and active interference by a much larger neighbouring power.
Russia has nuclear weapons but no British overseas territory nearby and Ukraine is not even in NATO.
Supplies yes, war no
When in a hole stop digging
Excuse me a second - yes, just another five minutes I’ll put the pad down, I’m nearly done for now - I owe an army of fans hanging on my every word for enlightenment.
Gilt yields rising above 4 per cent was not high by the standard of the 20th century. For this reason I didn’t believe Labour Party and media spending a fortnight treating every day as if it were Black Wednesday, more fool you if your a mug who believed that, because if it’s true as a nation and economy we cannot live with the sort of interest rates, gilt markets we lived with through last century, we ought to turn the lights out right now and just lie there in the dark.
Which, is what I’m about to do. 🥱
Just two months on from the Islamist attempt on his life, everyone seems to have forgotten about it.
Tom Slater"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/10/24/we-have-betrayed-salman-rushdie-once-again/
And why is the UK below Lithuania on the chart?
Not because of his “heritage”
Which - for the avoidance of doubt - was as an American not a Kenyan.
The "Putin launches a tactical nuke" scenario is functioning in some minds, though, in too congealed a way. The turning point after which one might as well consider WW3 inevitable would come before then. For a while now, the coolest armageddo-kids have been talking about the possible use of a radiological weapon ("dirty bomb"), which counts as both non-conventional (alongside chemical, bio, and nukes) and, in USA parlance, a "weapon of mass destruction", providing the R in "CBRN". Russia took this scenario to the UNSC. The notion was that the Ukrainian side would detonate a dirty bomb and blame the Russian side. For C background, see Syria; for R, see the war in Chechnya and incidents both in Chechnya itself and Moscow in the late 1990s.
Whether house or Coll, starting what year? (Asking for a friend.)
Got to observe that at least Sunak didn't go to New. Imagine having a double W as PM.
I get that opponents of the Tories want them to piss off, but that is not enough. If people still want them gone in two years, they will be gone. But they still have two years to demonstrate that they can deliver on a manifesto that was blown massively off course by Covid and war in Europe. Boris Johnson and then briefly Liz Truss have been found unable to deliver; Rishi Sunak still has ample time to demonstrate he is the man for the job. He could surprise on both the up and downside. But he has every right to take the full two years before offering himself to the judgment of the voters.
Obviously, if his Party fractures and he loses that c70 seat majority, that is a different circumstance. If he cannot command the authority of the House, and nobody else can, we have an election. Otherwise, not until the clock runs out.
Let’s put it simply. Putin is a bad man. He will consistently push for more and more of what he wants. It is in our strategic interests that he is stopped - we’ve proved over the last decade and more that appeasement doesn’t work. And if the price of stopping him is paid in someone else’s blood then so be it.
NEW THREAD
“By all accounts (Sunak at the treasury during the pandemic) it was, not quite minority report, but like, big screens of all the policy options and all the other countries policy options… Germany had done this on their version of the furlough scheme, or France had done that, and he would want to make sure that he could say we’ve done the most in Europe … so you just had to look at what the G7 record was and then you could say, well, he’s going to go to 80%, because it’s higher than 77%”
~20mins in;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0d98v2t
That’s absurd policy making.
That’s our bloody national debt that you’ve ramped up, just so you can gain some stupid imaginary brexit points.
And now the country must pay for your idiocy, with higher mortgage rates, tax increases, and spending cuts?
I don’t buy the fiscally dry, sound money persona he’s trying to portray. It was him spaffing cash up the wall that is the primary reason we’re now in one hell of a fiscal mess.
Why should we suffer for his sins?
I’m amazed that the otherwise sensible sound money PB tories are falling for his guff.
WW1 was terrible but we had to fight to avoid an even worse outcome.
In 1995 a separatist leader did get elected to the post of President and started trying to seize power for himself. As a result the Ukrainian Parliament deposed him and imposed a new constitution on Crimea.
You also don’t appear to understand the relevant situation. First, according to the Constitution of Ukraine its territory can only be altered with the consent of a nationwide plebiscite. So even if Crimea had voted 9-1 to join Russia in its 2014 referendum it would still have been unlawful and irrelevant (and btw, despite the official results the best the Russians could likely have hoped for given the ethnic makeup of the peninsula is around 50/50. It was not overwhelmingly Russian).
As for Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia, there just wasn’t any demand for a referendum because there was pro-Russian sentiment but no desire to leave Ukraine. It would be the equivalent of holding a referendum in Liverpool on joining Ireland because Northern Ireland did.
He actually wanted a war. Not territory, although he expected to gain it. Not money or prestige, although he wanted those to. A war. With people fighting and getting killed.
He had made the decision for a war in either 1914 or 1915 as long ago as 1908 when he had finished widening the Kiel Canal. If we hadn’t fought, the result would have been the conquest of France, Belgium and Serbia and the genocide of their civilian populations anyway. Plus, later, a direct attack on Britain who would now have been without allies. Not some mythical better world where shit didn’t happen.
It is scary how much historical ignorance is being displayed in this conversation to suit frankly insupportable political views.