Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
So when he said that we should talk to the Russians about their desire to invade and see if we could work out some sort of compromise, which would have enabled genocide, he was spot on?
As Trump now is?
Have you honestly no idea how utterly repellent you have become?
And it's very, very clear you do admire Putin, which I suppose isn't surprising given his Fascist views.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Corbyn wanted us to give samples of the Salisbury poison to Russia. His actions at the time were heinous.
Is that relevant to the Russian invasion, which he called on day one to end and Putin withdraw.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Can I just note one non-barking dog. SFAICS western media and governments are appearing to act on the unstated assumption that it is within the powers of Russia and USA together to 'stop the war', even though they are being very improper in doing so.
It isn't. It entirely lies within the collective power of Ukraine and other European powers (it doesn't need all of them), two of them nuclear, to continue the war.
I sort of hope they are playing at wait and see what emerges.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
If the Ukrainians wish to keep fighting for their country and their democracy and to avoid a brutal Russian occupation, then candidly, who are we to stop them?
Quite so.
And here's the thing, if someone wants to say we, the UK or the West, should not help Ukraine do that as it is none of our business (I believe this is the LuckyGuy position?), I understand that position even though I disagree with it.
But bigjohn is going further, with his hero Jezza, by outright stating implicitly or explicitly that Ukraine should not have defended itself at all because fighting is bad.
That is so much more extreme than simply saying we should not help Ukraine, it is saying Ukraine and its leaders are at fault for not wishing to be conquered. No amount of dressing it up or verbal twisting can change the position (paraphrased) 'they could not win, therefore they should not have fought'. And that that is the morally upright position.
I don't understand that. Didn't understand it 3 years ago, and don't know.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
If the Ukrainians wish to keep fighting for their country and their democracy and to avoid a brutal Russian occupation, then candidly, who are we to stop them?
Change the word Ukranians to Palestinians and the word Russian to Israeli and we assist the occupier.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Corbyn wanted us to give samples of the Salisbury poison to Russia. His actions at the time were heinous.
Is that relevant to the Russian invasion, which he called on day one to end and Putin withdraw.
He criticised Putin, with major caveats and qualifications. But it was the West he called on to stop arming Ukraine.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Corbyn wanted us to give samples of the Salisbury poison to Russia. His actions at the time were heinous.
Is that relevant to the Russian invasion, which he called on day one to end and Putin withdraw.
And said Britain shouldn't be helping Ukraine when of course, Putin did not decide to withdraw just because St Jeremy said so. Thus rendering his words worse than meanningless.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Putin can end the war IMMEDIATELY by pulling back to the 1991 border.
Oh Sunil you are such an idiot! Surely you would be better off blaming Corbyn.
I presume Israel could also pull back to the pre 1948 borders!
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
We have for so many years blithely assumed that the Americans would be there. We have become lazy, and happy to run down our armed forces, because there wasn't going to be a need for a conventional army, navy and air force - it was all about terrorism. And yet here we are. What we do have is the excellent nucleus of larger forces, if we have the desire and money to do it, we can increase the size of the army, we can buy planes and drones. But as always voters are happy for tax raises on other people.
I don't disagree. But we do need to assess the probability of Russia seeking territorial conquest outside Ukraine, and in particular against NATO members. A lot of the comments on this thread seem to put that probability very high, whereas the difficulty that Russia has experienced in Ukraine suggests that directly taking on a NATO country is really unlikely. We might wish to intervene in a different conflict, so the answer may not be nothing even if we don't expect a direct threat to a NATO member, but the assessment needs to be made.
Russia will be emboldened by the outcome whatever settlement is made over Ukraine. It seems likely to give it at least a large fraction of what it wants - and Ukraine is a vastly larger and stronger opponent than any of the Baltic States, which are the next obvious targets. Why would Putin or his doubtless even more revolting successors do anything but keep picking off chunks of territory, unless they are either beaten in battle or convinced that they would lose if they tried. Arming Europe to the teeth is how the latter is achieved and the former averted.
The Russians can't be trusted and should be viewed as enemies regardless of what happens next over Ukraine. "They might not do anything so everything's peachy" is not the way to deal with enemies.
Georgia is a more obvious next target.
If Russia gets what it wants in a deal with Trump, then a limited form of conflict probing the frontline NATO states, of the sort it engaged in against Ukraine between the annexation of Crimea and the outright invasion of 2022, is more likely.
Has everyone asking "What is Russia's next target?" examined their assumptions? Did they ask the same question in 1999 during the war in Chechnya?
No one wishes for peace more than Ukraine.’ The European Union’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell said during a press conference on May 22 that expediting the delivery of weapons to Ukraine was crucial to achieving victory, as only Russia wants the war to continue. Borrell added that those who equate the victim and the aggressor during wartime are not “really interested in peace.” >
And from a new MP, Mike Martin, in a book If war is politics by other means, then the distinctions of war versus peace are not as sharp as we might think. Very often in popular discourse war and peace are presented as binary opposites, as different states of being, with one being inherently bad, and the other inherently good. But peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means. It is the building of human political structures that enable us to keep talking, so that we need not resort to lethal violence to communicate....sometimes we have to fight a war to reach a durable peace;sometimes imposing peace onto a war before its questions are settled simply sets the scene for the next round of hostilities.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Corbyn wanted us to give samples of the Salisbury poison to Russia. His actions at the time were heinous.
Is that relevant to the Russian invasion, which he called on day one to end and Putin withdraw.
And said Britain shouldn't be helping Ukraine when of course, Putin did not decide to withdraw just because St Jeremy said so. Thus rendering his words worse than meanningless.
Well at least Trump has decided to adopt his policy.
I think some European politicians are still in denial or just putting on a brave front .
The US is no longer an ally . We may as well just throw our lot in with China , another morally bankrupt administration!
Seriously, we should be allying with the big countries where English is widely spoken i.e. Nigeria and India.
Only 10% speak English as a first/home language (L1) in Nigeria, and only 0.02%(!) in India!
Sunil's Anglosphere consists of:
UK US Canada Aus NZ Ireland Singapore
That's exactly the list of rich Anglophone countries - the white-majority ones plus Singapore.
In what context is the language spoken at home an important criterion?
India may have the poorest of the world's 10 biggest economies by GDP per capita, but it also has the largest growth rate (as well as being the world's most populous country, which seems to surprise most people I know). Many people are learning English - i.e. hundreds of millions of people - in India and China.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Corbyn wanted us to give samples of the Salisbury poison to Russia. His actions at the time were heinous.
Is that relevant to the Russian invasion, which he called on day one to end and Putin withdraw.
And said Britain shouldn't be helping Ukraine when of course, Putin did not decide to withdraw just because St Jeremy said so. Thus rendering his words worse than meanningless.
Well at least Trump has decided to adopt his policy.
Always said Corbyn and Trump were two cheeks of the same arse.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Putin can end the war IMMEDIATELY by pulling back to the 1991 border.
Oh Sunil you are such an idiot! Surely you would be better off blaming Corbyn.
I presume Israel could also pull back to the pre 1948 borders!
A bar chart just for you, BJO:
Russia and Israel are exactly the same size too. Source Sunil Bar Chart.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Corbyn wanted us to give samples of the Salisbury poison to Russia. His actions at the time were heinous.
Is that relevant to the Russian invasion, which he called on day one to end and Putin withdraw.
And said Britain shouldn't be helping Ukraine when of course, Putin did not decide to withdraw just because St Jeremy said so. Thus rendering his words worse than meanningless.
Well at least Trump has decided to adopt his policy.
Always said Corbyn and Trump were two cheeks of the same arse.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Corbyn wanted us to give samples of the Salisbury poison to Russia. His actions at the time were heinous.
That was the moment public opinion turned again Jezza and Labour, IMO.
Before Salisbury he'd been seen a rather eccentric but ultimately benign elderly man and young people especially thought he had a lot of interesting policies around social justice.
When he supported Russia over Britain when Russia deployed a chemical weapon against this country, the mask slipped.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Corbyn wanted us to give samples of the Salisbury poison to Russia. His actions at the time were heinous.
Is that relevant to the Russian invasion, which he called on day one to end and Putin withdraw.
And said Britain shouldn't be helping Ukraine when of course, Putin did not decide to withdraw just because St Jeremy said so. Thus rendering his words worse than meanningless.
Well at least Trump has decided to adopt his policy.
Always said Corbyn and Trump were two cheeks of the same arse.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Putin can end the war IMMEDIATELY by pulling back to the 1991 border.
Oh Sunil you are such an idiot! Surely you would be better off blaming Corbyn.
I presume Israel could also pull back to the pre 1948 borders!
A bar chart just for you, BJO:
Russia and Israel are exactly the same size too. Source Sunil Bar Chart.
It's interesting to reflect that few people on here were more consistently critical of Israel than Sunil. But not once has anyone accused him of being an antisemite.
Because he isn't. He grasps the difference between fair criticism of the crimes of a government and the vilification of an entire race based on mindless prejudice.
May I suggest you study his example rather than completely missing the point?
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Corbyn wanted us to give samples of the Salisbury poison to Russia. His actions at the time were heinous.
Is that relevant to the Russian invasion, which he called on day one to end and Putin withdraw.
And said Britain shouldn't be helping Ukraine when of course, Putin did not decide to withdraw just because St Jeremy said so. Thus rendering his words worse than meanningless.
Well at least Trump has decided to adopt his policy.
Always said Corbyn and Trump were two cheeks of the same arse.
Sane as SKS and Thatcher.
Is that an admission that Corbyn and Trump are both insane?
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Corbyn wanted us to give samples of the Salisbury poison to Russia. His actions at the time were heinous.
That was the moment public opinion turned again Jezza and Labour, IMO.
Before Salisbury he'd been seen a rather eccentric but ultimately benign elderly man and young people especially thought he had a lot of interesting policies around social justice.
When he supported Russia over Britain when Russia deployed a chemical weapon against this country, the mask slipped.
His instincts are quite revealing, and he gets very pissy when the logical consequences of his trite comments are pointed out. Yet is revered as a modern day saint by large sections of the internet to this day.
Can I just note one non-barking dog. SFAICS western media and governments are appearing to act on the unstated assumption that it is within the powers of Russia and USA together to 'stop the war', even though they are being very improper in doing so.
It isn't. It entirely lies within the collective power of Ukraine and other European powers (it doesn't need all of them), two of them nuclear, to continue the war.
I sort of hope they are playing at wait and see what emerges.
Quite right.
And I fully support significant tax rises on myself and others to help support Ukraine in the short term and boost our defense in the medium term.
The EU/UK has four times the population of Russia, four times the defence spend, ten times the GDP. Russia is severely weakened, economically and militarily. It is puny compared with EU/UK.
We could meet any Russian incursion in Eastern Europe by over whelming force. We could defeat Russia in Ukraine without the US if we chose to.
Why don't we? Answer: because we are afraid of Putin's use of nuclear weapons. That's been the problem all along. Nuclear blackmail.
We have to confront that, or Putin will be able to walk all over us. We need to make it personal.
I'm aware there are posters on here who are pro-Trump, or at least Trump-curious, but who are also nationalist and not pro-Putin. Is there anyone who is prepared to admit that they have become less pro- Trump as a result of the Riyadh shenanigans?
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Not just NATO European states but all NATO states.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
Have you seen what happened in Bucha? Have you heard what Russia is doing in the occupied territories?
The desolation in Gaza is not very different from how the Russians captured Mariupol.
If Russia wins, there will not be any Ukrainians. Kids will be deported (as is already happening in the occupied territories), and the Ukrainian language and identity quashed.
You are an intelligent chap, so I do winder if your blindness is wilful.
The Russians are the bad guys in this. I know as a lifelong leftie that might seem odd to you, but it's the case. If you hate what Israel's doing, you should hate what Russia is doing. More so, as there is zero excuse in Russia's case.
And that's the issue you have. You rightly condemn one state's actions, but want another state, doing similar things, to win.
Would the Palestinians not be better off alive than dead under Israeli rule?
You’ve got it the wrong way round.
He cares about the Ukrainians so he wants the war to stop.
He hates the Palestinians so virulently that he never wants them to stop fighting against impossible odds. So he can bask in the warm glow from their deaths.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
Perhaps so, though when would that take effect? Too late for poor Ukraine sadly.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Can I just note one non-barking dog. SFAICS western media and governments are appearing to act on the unstated assumption that it is within the powers of Russia and USA together to 'stop the war', even though they are being very improper in doing so.
It isn't. It entirely lies within the collective power of Ukraine and other European powers (it doesn't need all of them), two of them nuclear, to continue the war.
I sort of hope they are playing at wait and see what emerges.
Only one country can stop this war.
Russia. And by extension, that means Putin.
Zelenskyy (or whoever replaces him) cannot stop Ukraine fighting; in the same way Pétain could not stop the Maquis from fighting. Those (including sadly, some on here) who insinuate that the Ukraine identity does not exist; that they're misguided Russians, have been utterly shown to be fools by the way the Ukrainians have fought Russia for three years (longer, if you say the war started in 2014).
But Putin could stop this war by simply withdrawing from Ukraine. Or perhaps, at this point, by just stopping offensives.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
And you are a white feather apologist...
Is name calling all you have left.
Nope spending 2 seconds thinking of a nickname for you is all that you are worth - you views definitely aren't worth arguing against because they are beyond worthless.
Hint any child in a part of Ukraine captured by Russia is going to be cannonfodder in whatever battle Russia wishes to run next. The fact you think that is an acceptable price for piece tells us everything we need to know about you.
On Starmer. I think he's having rather a good 'war', being both statesmanlike and diplomatic. He's barely put a foot wrong in dealing with Trump/Musk and Putin, and with EU leaders. As ever, I think he's underestimated by most.
I found myself wondering how well other recent PMs would be coping, and found myself looking more favourably on Starmer. Boris would be torn between Zelensky and Trump. Sunak would be a nothing. Truss would be lost. Blair would be too sycophantic to Trump. May may be okay - hard to tell. Cameron - not sure.
In the long, long journey to the next GE, regardless of opinion polls I suspect Starmer will currently be improving his estimation by the British public.
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Not just NATO European states but all NATO states.
I must admit, I didn't put "LibDem supporters most keen on increased defense spending, Reform voters least keen." on my polling forecasts for this year
I think the reason for that is that the question is effectively "how attached are you to democratic lawful government?" Then the Reform and Lib Dem leanings make a lot of sense.
The EU/UK has four times the population of Russia, four times the defence spend, ten times the GDP. Russia is severely weakened, economically and militarily. It is puny compared with EU/UK.
We could meet any Russian incursion in Eastern Europe by over whelming force. We could defeat Russia in Ukraine without the US if we chose to.
Why don't we? Answer: because we are afraid of Putin's use of nuclear weapons. That's been the problem all along. Nuclear blackmail.
We have to confront that, or Putin will be able to walk all over us. We need to make it personal.
The defence spend issue isn’t a good comparison- Russia literally gets more bang for their buck with huge homegrown defence industry. Europe spends a lot on expensive kit, a lot of it, if you combine the countries, is doubled up which isn’t efficient. I believe for example that UK military pensions are included in defence spend and the UK and France have huge spends on nuclear and on aircraft carriers that account for hefty chunks.
Russia also has the advantage of battle experienced troops and still would if it kicked off in a few years. Having NCOs and troops and officers who have fought in the same type of war would be a massive benefit over fresh and green European troops where the few with combat experience will have it from Afghanistan and some from Iraq - not like for like experiences.
They are about to pick up their “get out of jail free” card for their economy from Trump so have a few years to learn lessons, recover the economy and rebuild.
They would take a big pasting but at a huge cost to Europe in money and men.
You are right though, nuclear blackmail is a powerful thing.
I see the Italians are the latest to trash SKS's barmy boot on the ground peacekeeper idea joining Germany and Poland
Italian PM said deploying European troops would be "the most complex and the least effective" way of securing peace in Ukraine..
Talk about stupid ideas why did SKS raise this non starter
Perhaps he could see that Trump was about to betray Ukraine and was hoping that by raising the possibility of British troops being part of a "peace-keeping" force, he could make Donald think again?
I very much doubt whether the polling as of this week about the merits of the Labour government and Starmer, or our opinions that that we prefer not to pay much for our defence are going to matter much by the time of the next election.
Between now and 2029 Starmer has the opportunity and possibility of being showing himself to be a great European leader in hard times, and the UK to be part of a renewed western enterprise. If this is so and he succeeds he goes in the history books anyway. If this is so and he fails, then none of today's polling opinions will matter a jot.
As a member of the 1954 cohort, current times are like the death of HM QE II multiplied by 100. Stuff that has been background and backbone of your entire seventy years as a UK citizen have gone; the extent to which in unexpressed ways we are looking to Labour, Starmer and a sense of national unity to lead us in new times is, I think, only slowly dawning.
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Not just NATO European states but all NATO states.
What's wrong with China or India doing it?
Putin's lickspittles? Marvellous idea.
Well, I don't think they're his lickspittles given their own desires will not align everywhere. But they definitely support Putin.
U.S. geopolitical until about 5 minutes ago was to oppose China, Russia and Iran, with the support of regional deputies.
The UK was favoured deputy in Europe and in NATO. Israel in the Middle East. Japan in East Asia. Australia in South Asia.
It’s no longer really obvious what US strategy is.
Trump doesn't have a strategy - that would require things he doesn't understand. Instead he sees issues and tries to fix them without looking at any bigger picture. Hence taxing cars and oil from Canada not realising that the companies most impacted are Ford and GM and the refineries in Chicago / the NE USA built to refine the crude oil Canada drills.
I suspect Trump believes his own hype and that he can make 'deals' to sort problems.
On Starmer. I think he's having rather a good 'war', being both statesmanlike and diplomatic. He's barely put a foot wrong in dealing with Trump/Musk and Putin, and with EU leaders. As ever, I think he's underestimated by most.
I found myself wondering how well other recent PMs would be coping, and found myself looking more favourably on Starmer. Boris would be torn between Zelensky and Trump. Sunak would be a nothing. Truss would be lost. Blair would be too sycophantic to Trump. May may be okay - hard to tell. Cameron - not sure.
In the long, long journey to the next GE, regardless of opinion polls I suspect Starmer will currently be improving his estimation by the British public.
Churchill "won" WWII and was immediately thrown out by the voters.
I suspect SKS having a "good war" will be make no difference either way.
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
I think it's great that the Jewish Moscow born Kisan is the final arbiter on who is British.
Why Jewish rather than Russian?
1. I mentioned Moscow born, so I think that goes without saying 2. Kisin specifically mentioned Sunak being Hindi, which - if I'm not mistaken - is a religion
Although I think Kisin's beef was about the skin colour.
(I'll admit I've never heard of him.)
A few years ago he got some positive attention for some speeches against woke culture. Had a popular podcast. I've read his book 'An immigrant's love letter to the West', which was decent enough. Now he's a right wing troll.
I think the issue may be he used to be a comedian but has transitioned to being a full time commentator, and when people do that they tend to lose a little of integrity as they chase highs and don't have time to make measured interventions. See people like Goodwin, Petersen.
You’ve reminded me that Petersen is appearing at the Hydro in Glasgow in June, 12,000+ capacity. I regret to say that two people I know have expressed admiration for him in the past, I’ll be curious to see if they attend (£50 a pop).
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Not just NATO European states but all NATO states.
What's wrong with China or India doing it?
Putin's lickspittles? Marvellous idea.
I hope you're joking. Putin must be some kind of demon if he controls both China and India. He probably has more influence in the USA than in either of those countries. Does he own the Pope too?
I've been calling for increased defence spending for... well, probably longer than I've been on here. As for alliances, anyone who shares our general values (so France, Germany, USA (before Trump) et al).
Where I differ from you is that I think tax increases are required to pay for it...
I haven't said that tax increases aren't required. In fact, I've speculated as to how and where they could fall.
Where I differ (slightly) is that I wouldn't be squeamish about welfare or health trimbacks.
Because at the moment you don't use the NHS and don't know anyone who is on long term sick welfare.
Um. No. Firstly, I do know someone on long term sick welfare. And, secondly, my own parents are beneficiaries of the triple lock. On the NHS, I want more risk shared by its users, its care more circumscribed, the concept of social insurance to be initiated, more pay restraint and much more automation.
This idea that I just think one way because I'm ignorant of it just doesn't wash. I think there's a huge and corrupting waste of human capital in our welfare and health system where, fundamentally, I think there should be fewer entitlements and the individual should take more responsibility - which would be better for them too.
On Starmer. I think he's having rather a good 'war', being both statesmanlike and diplomatic. He's barely put a foot wrong in dealing with Trump/Musk and Putin, and with EU leaders. As ever, I think he's underestimated by most.
I found myself wondering how well other recent PMs would be coping, and found myself looking more favourably on Starmer. Boris would be torn between Zelensky and Trump. Sunak would be a nothing. Truss would be lost. Blair would be too sycophantic to Trump. May may be okay - hard to tell. Cameron - not sure.
In the long, long journey to the next GE, regardless of opinion polls I suspect Starmer will currently be improving his estimation by the British public.
Boris would be Ukraine all the way. He can agree with what Trump is doing domestically, but I cannot see him switching tracks away from Ukraine now. Sunak was continuity Boris, and hardly a 'nothing'. May tried to get an international consensus over the Salisbury attack, and got something, but not as much as she wanted. Cameron? I'm unsure. The way Miliband stiffed him on the Syria vote might mean his reaction would be different before and after.
On Starmer. I think he's having rather a good 'war', being both statesmanlike and diplomatic. He's barely put a foot wrong in dealing with Trump/Musk and Putin, and with EU leaders. As ever, I think he's underestimated by most.
I found myself wondering how well other recent PMs would be coping, and found myself looking more favourably on Starmer. Boris would be torn between Zelensky and Trump. Sunak would be a nothing. Truss would be lost. Blair would be too sycophantic to Trump. May may be okay - hard to tell. Cameron - not sure.
In the long, long journey to the next GE, regardless of opinion polls I suspect Starmer will currently be improving his estimation by the British public.
Churchill "won" WWII and was immediately thrown out by the voters.
I suspect SKS having a "good war" will be make no difference either way.
So you're not disagreeing? And, of course, it was Labour voters who kicked Churchill into touch.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Is that in the same way that the ladybird on my garden wall is my fiercest critic?
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
I think it's great that the Jewish Moscow born Kisan is the final arbiter on who is British.
Why Jewish rather than Russian?
1. I mentioned Moscow born, so I think that goes without saying 2. Kisin specifically mentioned Sunak being Hindi, which - if I'm not mistaken - is a religion
Although I think Kisin's beef was about the skin colour.
(I'll admit I've never heard of him.)
A few years ago he got some positive attention for some speeches against woke culture. Had a popular podcast. I've read his book 'An immigrant's love letter to the West', which was decent enough. Now he's a right wing troll.
I think the issue may be he used to be a comedian but has transitioned to being a full time commentator, and when people do that they tend to lose a little of integrity as they chase highs and don't have time to make measured interventions. See people like Goodwin, Petersen.
You’ve reminded me that Petersen is appearing at the Hydro in Glasgow in June, 12,000+ capacity. I regret to say that two people I know have expressed admiration for him in the past, I’ll be curious to see if they attend (£50 a pop).
Do that a few times a year and you are soon talking serious cash. No wonder pop 'academia' is in fashion.
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
On Starmer. I think he's having rather a good 'war', being both statesmanlike and diplomatic. He's barely put a foot wrong in dealing with Trump/Musk and Putin, and with EU leaders. As ever, I think he's underestimated by most.
I found myself wondering how well other recent PMs would be coping, and found myself looking more favourably on Starmer. Boris would be torn between Zelensky and Trump. Sunak would be a nothing. Truss would be lost. Blair would be too sycophantic to Trump. May may be okay - hard to tell. Cameron - not sure.
In the long, long journey to the next GE, regardless of opinion polls I suspect Starmer will currently be improving his estimation by the British public.
Churchill "won" WWII and was immediately thrown out by the voters.
I suspect SKS having a "good war" will be make no difference either way.
So you're not disagreeing? And, of course, it was Labour voters who kicked Churchill into touch.
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Not just NATO European states but all NATO states.
What's wrong with China or India doing it?
Putin's lickspittles? Marvellous idea.
I hope you're joking. Putin must be some kind of demon if he controls both China and India. He probably has more influence in the USA than in either of those countries. Does he own the Pope too?
Clearly Putin derangement syndrome exists.
So how much military assistance have the world's two most populous countries supplied to Ukraine? Or are they too busy buying Russian oil to have got round to it yet?
Modi is a fascist. He likes to hobnob with other fascists.
Can I just note one non-barking dog. SFAICS western media and governments are appearing to act on the unstated assumption that it is within the powers of Russia and USA together to 'stop the war', even though they are being very improper in doing so.
It isn't. It entirely lies within the collective power of Ukraine and other European powers (it doesn't need all of them), two of them nuclear, to continue the war.
I sort of hope they are playing at wait and see what emerges.
Russia and the US negotiate something
Europe says that’s unaccceptable and get some concessions
Ukraine says that’s unacceptable and gets more concessions
This assumes a rational negotiation… but if it falls apart what has Ukraine lost?
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Is that in the same way that the ladybird on my garden wall is my fiercest critic?
Why does the ladybird in question not like you? Does it have a personal fetish for Rachel Reeves or do you just use very aggressive pesticides on the greenfly?
I've been calling for increased defence spending for... well, probably longer than I've been on here. As for alliances, anyone who shares our general values (so France, Germany, USA (before Trump) et al).
Where I differ from you is that I think tax increases are required to pay for it...
I haven't said that tax increases aren't required. In fact, I've speculated as to how and where they could fall.
Where I differ (slightly) is that I wouldn't be squeamish about welfare or health trimbacks.
Fair enough.
It's just that austerity has been tried for many years, and I'm unsure there's much more to be squeezed without causing real hardships for some people.
I think the triple-lock and PIPs are lunacy. The case studies of those who are paid by the State to live an independent lifestyle on an equivalent salary of £35k are mind-boggling.
Time-limit all long-term sickness benefits to 6-12 months, just as employers and insurers do, unless there are extenuating medical reasons.
Can I just note one non-barking dog. SFAICS western media and governments are appearing to act on the unstated assumption that it is within the powers of Russia and USA together to 'stop the war', even though they are being very improper in doing so.
It isn't. It entirely lies within the collective power of Ukraine and other European powers (it doesn't need all of them), two of them nuclear, to continue the war.
I sort of hope they are playing at wait and see what emerges.
Russia and the US negotiate something
Europe says that’s unaccceptable and get some concessions
Ukraine says that’s unacceptable and gets more concessions
This assumes a rational negotiation… but if it falls apart what has Ukraine lost?
The war, because Trump will immediately support Putin. More congenial to him and didn't make him look an idiot over the Hunter Biden laptop.
I must admit, I didn't put "LibDem supporters most keen on increased defense spending, Reform voters least keen." on my polling forecasts for this year
There will be more than a few former Corbynites among Reform supporters.
Plus various whiners who always think they're personally entitled to a tax cut and spending increase.
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
On Starmer. I think he's having rather a good 'war', being both statesmanlike and diplomatic. He's barely put a foot wrong in dealing with Trump/Musk and Putin, and with EU leaders. As ever, I think he's underestimated by most.
I found myself wondering how well other recent PMs would be coping, and found myself looking more favourably on Starmer. Boris would be torn between Zelensky and Trump. Sunak would be a nothing. Truss would be lost. Blair would be too sycophantic to Trump. May may be okay - hard to tell. Cameron - not sure.
In the long, long journey to the next GE, regardless of opinion polls I suspect Starmer will currently be improving his estimation by the British public.
Churchill "won" WWII and was immediately thrown out by the voters.
I suspect SKS having a "good war" will be make no difference either way.
So you're not disagreeing? And, of course, it was Labour voters who kicked Churchill into touch.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
If the Ukrainians wish to keep fighting for their country and their democracy and to avoid a brutal Russian occupation, then candidly, who are we to stop them?
Change the word Ukranians to Palestinians and the word Russian to Israeli and we assist the occupier.
So, you're saying you don't support the Palestinians in Gaza?
No one wishes for peace more than Ukraine.’ The European Union’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell said during a press conference on May 22 that expediting the delivery of weapons to Ukraine was crucial to achieving victory, as only Russia wants the war to continue. Borrell added that those who equate the victim and the aggressor during wartime are not “really interested in peace.” >
And from a new MP, Mike Martin, in a book If war is politics by other means, then the distinctions of war versus peace are not as sharp as we might think. Very often in popular discourse war and peace are presented as binary opposites, as different states of being, with one being inherently bad, and the other inherently good. But peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means. It is the building of human political structures that enable us to keep talking, so that we need not resort to lethal violence to communicate....sometimes we have to fight a war to reach a durable peace;sometimes imposing peace onto a war before its questions are settled simply sets the scene for the next round of hostilities.
Which book? As mentioned previously I have Mike Martin MP's thesis on my tablet for reading on journeys where WiFi is not available.
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
Regardless of all that, I hope he recovers soon.
Me too. I like him a lot. Pope Benedict apparently did his unprecedented retirement so that someone could come in and decorrupt the Vatican. Francis seems a very moral Pope, though I don't agree with him about everything. Health and long life to him.
Could Britain realistically withdraw from NATO and Five Eyes? I.e. is it militarily feasible?
It's feasible in that it's physically possible. Plenty of countries exist outside both structures (Austria, Switzerland, 26 Counties) and they somehow manage to sleep at night.
It's not feasible in a cultural and political sense. The British establishment cannot conceive of any strategic settlement other than timidly peering from behind Superman's cloak.
On Starmer. I think he's having rather a good 'war', being both statesmanlike and diplomatic. He's barely put a foot wrong in dealing with Trump/Musk and Putin, and with EU leaders. As ever, I think he's underestimated by most.
I found myself wondering how well other recent PMs would be coping, and found myself looking more favourably on Starmer. Boris would be torn between Zelensky and Trump. Sunak would be a nothing. Truss would be lost. Blair would be too sycophantic to Trump. May may be okay - hard to tell. Cameron - not sure.
In the long, long journey to the next GE, regardless of opinion polls I suspect Starmer will currently be improving his estimation by the British public.
You ain't seen nothing yet.
Tomorrow, Starmer will touch an oak twig and a stone, and turn both to gold. In the afternoon, he will heal the sick of inner city Liverpool, and feed them all from just one loaf of bread and a single fish.
No one wishes for peace more than Ukraine.’ The European Union’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell said during a press conference on May 22 that expediting the delivery of weapons to Ukraine was crucial to achieving victory, as only Russia wants the war to continue. Borrell added that those who equate the victim and the aggressor during wartime are not “really interested in peace.” >
And from a new MP, Mike Martin, in a book If war is politics by other means, then the distinctions of war versus peace are not as sharp as we might think. Very often in popular discourse war and peace are presented as binary opposites, as different states of being, with one being inherently bad, and the other inherently good. But peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means. It is the building of human political structures that enable us to keep talking, so that we need not resort to lethal violence to communicate....sometimes we have to fight a war to reach a durable peace;sometimes imposing peace onto a war before its questions are settled simply sets the scene for the next round of hostilities.
Which book? As mentioned previously I have Mike Martin MP's thesis on my tablet for reading on journeys where WiFi is not available.
No one wishes for peace more than Ukraine.’ The European Union’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell said during a press conference on May 22 that expediting the delivery of weapons to Ukraine was crucial to achieving victory, as only Russia wants the war to continue. Borrell added that those who equate the victim and the aggressor during wartime are not “really interested in peace.” >
And from a new MP, Mike Martin, in a book If war is politics by other means, then the distinctions of war versus peace are not as sharp as we might think. Very often in popular discourse war and peace are presented as binary opposites, as different states of being, with one being inherently bad, and the other inherently good. But peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means. It is the building of human political structures that enable us to keep talking, so that we need not resort to lethal violence to communicate....sometimes we have to fight a war to reach a durable peace;sometimes imposing peace onto a war before its questions are settled simply sets the scene for the next round of hostilities.
Which book? As mentioned previously I have Mike Martin MP's thesis on my tablet for reading on journeys where WiFi is not available.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
I mean... he's only the longest because the actual fierce critics all fell out of windows or accidentally-whoops swallowed Polonium.
I suspect Jezza is just as fierce a critic of the South Islington Labour branch for their heinous crimes against Socialism as he is Putin's.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
Though at least the UK is meetings its NATO target of percentage of gdp spent on defence unlike some like Germany and France (though that might change if Merz is elected at the weekend)
Germany spent 2% of GDP on defence in 2024. Do try to keep up.
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
Regardless of all that, I hope he recovers soon.
Really ?
Benedict didn't leave much impression but had the sense to retire.
On Starmer. I think he's having rather a good 'war', being both statesmanlike and diplomatic. He's barely put a foot wrong in dealing with Trump/Musk and Putin, and with EU leaders. As ever, I think he's underestimated by most.
I found myself wondering how well other recent PMs would be coping, and found myself looking more favourably on Starmer. Boris would be torn between Zelensky and Trump. Sunak would be a nothing. Truss would be lost. Blair would be too sycophantic to Trump. May may be okay - hard to tell. Cameron - not sure.
In the long, long journey to the next GE, regardless of opinion polls I suspect Starmer will currently be improving his estimation by the British public.
Starmer has made a number of bizarre missteps:
(1) The Chagos Islands (2) Tax Relief for Farmers
In the former, he could easily have simply walked away when Mauritius started demanding (more and more) money. And the threat to just hand the island to the US is a very real one.
For the latter, there are a number of perfectly sensible compromises that would allow people to keep running family farms while clamping down on the ridiculous tax schemes created by the previous administration.
But I agree that -broadly- he's acquitted himself ok re Trump and Ukraine. So far.
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Not just NATO European states but all NATO states.
What's wrong with China or India doing it?
Putin's lickspittles? Marvellous idea.
I hope you're joking. Putin must be some kind of demon if he controls both China and India. He probably has more influence in the USA than in either of those countries. Does he own the Pope too?
Clearly Putin derangement syndrome exists.
So how much military assistance have the world's two most populous countries supplied to Ukraine? Or are they too busy buying Russian oil to have got round to it yet?
Modi is a fascist. He likes to hobnob with other fascists.
Other things being equal, it would be better to have a country enforce the ceasefire that has been neutral. China hasn't been neutral, but they've given far less assistance to Russia than the US and other NATO countries have given to Ukraine, and less than Iran and North Korea have given to Russia, although tbf I wouldn't be surprised if they flashed a little bit of pale green light in Pyongyang's direction regarding the NK assistance. But the idea of Poland or Germany or any other NATO member state enforcing the ceasefire would be absurd. I can't think of many better countries to step up and do it than China and India.
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Not just NATO European states but all NATO states.
What's wrong with China or India doing it?
Putin's lickspittles? Marvellous idea.
I hope you're joking. Putin must be some kind of demon if he controls both China and India. He probably has more influence in the USA than in either of those countries. Does he own the Pope too?
Clearly Putin derangement syndrome exists.
So how much military assistance have the world's two most populous countries supplied to Ukraine? Or are they too busy buying Russian oil to have got round to it yet?
Modi is a fascist. He likes to hobnob with other fascists.
India has always had a very close (post colonial) relationship with Russia, and seems to much prefer them to us (perhaps for understandable reasons). This was the case when they were a communist dictatorship, so there's not much reason why it would have changed now they're an authoritarian state with the remnants of a democracy.
In my opinion we need to be a good deal less starry-eyed about India. They do not wish us well. We should at the very least not be trying to exercise 'soft power' by hosing aid money at them when they have a space programme. The same goes for China.
Could Britain realistically withdraw from NATO and Five Eyes? I.e. is it militarily feasible?
Yes, but at what cost? The UK's defence posture would instantly collapse to protecting the Home Islands and Atlantic possessions like Gib and Falklands. Russia would start picking off the border nations, and the peace engineered for 80 years would disappear.
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Not just NATO European states but all NATO states.
What's wrong with China or India doing it?
Putin's lickspittles? Marvellous idea.
I hope you're joking. Putin must be some kind of demon if he controls both China and India. He probably has more influence in the USA than in either of those countries. Does he own the Pope too?
Clearly Putin derangement syndrome exists.
So how much military assistance have the world's two most populous countries supplied to Ukraine? Or are they too busy buying Russian oil to have got round to it yet?
Modi is a fascist. He likes to hobnob with other fascists.
Other things being equal, it's better to have a country enforce the ceasefire that has been neutral. China hasn't been neutral, but they given less assistance to Russia than the US and other NATO countries have to Ukraine, and less than Iran and North Korea have given to Russia, although tbf I wouldn't be surprised if they flashed a little bit of a pale green light in Pyongyang's direction regarding the NK assistance. But the idea of Poland or Germany enforcing the ceasefire would be absurd. I can't think of many better countries to step up and do it than China and India.
India is the most Pro-Putin country outside Russia.
Could Britain realistically withdraw from NATO and Five Eyes? I.e. is it militarily feasible?
Yes, but at what cost? The UK's defence posture would instantly collapse to protecting the Home Islands and Atlantic possessions like Gib and Falklands. Russia would start picking off the border nations, and the peace engineered for 80 years would disappear.
The end of american hegemony may be a bumpier ride than some are hoping.
I must admit, I didn't put "LibDem supporters most keen on increased defense spending, Reform voters least keen." on my polling forecasts for this year
It's an odd paradox that a lot of dyed in wool Eurosceptics are in love with Russia and Putin (look no further than Nigel Farage)
It was the thing that for a few seconds made my pencil hover over REMAIN/LEAVE all those years ago...
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
Yes, that's my view.
One of the biggest mistake some Remoaners make is this idea that Brexiteers are anti-Europe.
We're not. We simply don't agree with British membership of the EU because we don't subscribe to its central political project to establish the trappings of statehood in pursuit of its goal to build a new country called The European Union.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
Yes: we do need a defence pact outside of the EU.
It needs, I think we'd all agree, to include Norway, Iceland and us, for a start. Plus, for the reasons you outlined, we don't probably don't want Hungary to be a part.
The question is this: do we want to completely cut ties with the US? That is, is the current Trump administration an aberration, and if the European countries step up and put the spending in, then NATO continues? Or is that it? Is NATO effectively over?
Two months ago, I would have said "tough it out, America is ultimately our friend", but the problem is that the current administration doesn't think in terms of long term allies, it thinks transactionally here and now. And the cost to remaining in its orbit is likely to rise and rise.
For that reason, I fear we do need to start thinking beyond NATO.
No one wishes for peace more than Ukraine.’ The European Union’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell said during a press conference on May 22 that expediting the delivery of weapons to Ukraine was crucial to achieving victory, as only Russia wants the war to continue. Borrell added that those who equate the victim and the aggressor during wartime are not “really interested in peace.” >
And from a new MP, Mike Martin, in a book If war is politics by other means, then the distinctions of war versus peace are not as sharp as we might think. Very often in popular discourse war and peace are presented as binary opposites, as different states of being, with one being inherently bad, and the other inherently good. But peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means. It is the building of human political structures that enable us to keep talking, so that we need not resort to lethal violence to communicate....sometimes we have to fight a war to reach a durable peace;sometimes imposing peace onto a war before its questions are settled simply sets the scene for the next round of hostilities.
Which book? As mentioned previously I have Mike Martin MP's thesis on my tablet for reading on journeys where WiFi is not available.
On Starmer. I think he's having rather a good 'war', being both statesmanlike and diplomatic. He's barely put a foot wrong in dealing with Trump/Musk and Putin, and with EU leaders. As ever, I think he's underestimated by most.
I found myself wondering how well other recent PMs would be coping, and found myself looking more favourably on Starmer. Boris would be torn between Zelensky and Trump. Sunak would be a nothing. Truss would be lost. Blair would be too sycophantic to Trump. May may be okay - hard to tell. Cameron - not sure.
In the long, long journey to the next GE, regardless of opinion polls I suspect Starmer will currently be improving his estimation by the British public.
Starmer has made a number of bizarre missteps:
(1) The Chagos Islands (2) Tax Relief for Farmers
In the former, he could easily have simply walked away when Mauritius started demanding (more and more) money. And the threat to just hand the island to the US is a very real one.
For the latter, there are a number of perfectly sensible compromises that would allow people to keep running family farms while clamping down on the ridiculous tax schemes created by the previous administration.
But I agree that -broadly- he's acquitted himself ok re Trump and Ukraine. So far.
Walking away and saying "Ok, negotiate with Trump then" could save us quite a bit of cash, and possibly gain us quite a lot of cachet with the orange-one.
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Not just NATO European states but all NATO states.
What's wrong with China or India doing it?
Putin's lickspittles? Marvellous idea.
I hope you're joking. Putin must be some kind of demon if he controls both China and India. He probably has more influence in the USA than in either of those countries. Does he own the Pope too?
Clearly Putin derangement syndrome exists.
So how much military assistance have the world's two most populous countries supplied to Ukraine? Or are they too busy buying Russian oil to have got round to it yet?
Modi is a fascist. He likes to hobnob with other fascists.
India has always had a very close (post colonial) relationship with Russia, and seems to much prefer them to us (perhaps for understandable reasons). This was the case when they were a communist dictatorship, so there's not much reason why it would have changed now they're an authoritarian state with the remnants of a democracy.
In my opinion we need to be a good deal less starry-eyed about India. They do not wish us well. We should at the very least not be trying to exercise 'soft power' by hosing aid money at them when they have a space programme. The same goes for China.
Indeed. Famously India did not sympathise with the UK over Salisbury.
Comments
As Trump now is?
Have you honestly no idea how utterly repellent you have become?
And it's very, very clear you do admire Putin, which I suppose isn't surprising given his Fascist views.
It isn't. It entirely lies within the collective power of Ukraine and other European powers (it doesn't need all of them), two of them nuclear, to continue the war.
I sort of hope they are playing at wait and see what emerges.
And here's the thing, if someone wants to say we, the UK or the West, should not help Ukraine do that as it is none of our business (I believe this is the LuckyGuy position?), I understand that position even though I disagree with it.
But bigjohn is going further, with his hero Jezza, by outright stating implicitly or explicitly that Ukraine should not have defended itself at all because fighting is bad.
That is so much more extreme than simply saying we should not help Ukraine, it is saying Ukraine and its leaders are at fault for not wishing to be conquered. No amount of dressing it up or verbal twisting can change the position (paraphrased) 'they could not win, therefore they should not have fought'. And that that is the morally upright position.
I don't understand that. Didn't understand it 3 years ago, and don't know.
No one wishes for peace more than Ukraine.’ The European Union’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell said during a press conference on May 22 that expediting the delivery of weapons to Ukraine was crucial to achieving victory, as only Russia wants the war to continue. Borrell added that those who equate the victim and the aggressor during wartime are not “really interested in peace.”
>
And from a new MP, Mike Martin, in a book
If war is politics by other means, then the distinctions of war versus peace are not as sharp as we might think. Very often in popular discourse war and peace are presented as binary opposites, as different states of being, with one being inherently bad, and the other inherently good. But peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means. It is the building of human political structures that enable us to keep talking, so that we need not resort to lethal violence to communicate....sometimes we have to fight a war to reach a durable peace;sometimes imposing peace onto a war before its questions are settled simply sets the scene for the next round of hostilities.
In what context is the language spoken at home an important criterion?
India may have the poorest of the world's 10 biggest economies by GDP per capita, but it also has the largest growth rate (as well as being the world's most populous country, which seems to surprise most people I know). Many people are learning English - i.e. hundreds of millions of people - in India and China.
Before Salisbury he'd been seen a rather eccentric but ultimately benign elderly man and young people especially thought he had a lot of interesting policies around social justice.
When he supported Russia over Britain when Russia deployed a chemical weapon against this country, the mask slipped.
Because he isn't. He grasps the difference between fair criticism of the crimes of a government and the vilification of an entire race based on mindless prejudice.
May I suggest you study his example rather than completely missing the point?
And I fully support significant tax rises on myself and others to help support Ukraine in the short term and boost our defense in the medium term.
The EU/UK has four times the population of Russia, four times the defence spend, ten times the GDP. Russia is severely weakened, economically and militarily. It is puny compared with EU/UK.
We could meet any Russian incursion in Eastern Europe by over whelming force. We could defeat Russia in Ukraine without the US if we chose to.
Why don't we? Answer: because we are afraid of Putin's use of nuclear weapons. That's been the problem all along. Nuclear blackmail.
We have to confront that, or Putin will be able to walk all over us.
We need to make it personal.
What's wrong with China or India doing it?
He cares about the Ukrainians so he wants the war to stop.
He hates the Palestinians so virulently that he never wants them to stop fighting against impossible odds. So he can bask in the warm glow from their deaths.
Italian PM said deploying European troops would be "the most complex and the least effective" way of securing peace in Ukraine..
Talk about stupid ideas why did SKS raise this non starter
Russia. And by extension, that means Putin.
Zelenskyy (or whoever replaces him) cannot stop Ukraine fighting; in the same way Pétain could not stop the Maquis from fighting. Those (including sadly, some on here) who insinuate that the Ukraine identity does not exist; that they're misguided Russians, have been utterly shown to be fools by the way the Ukrainians have fought Russia for three years (longer, if you say the war started in 2014).
But Putin could stop this war by simply withdrawing from Ukraine. Or perhaps, at this point, by just stopping offensives.
Hint any child in a part of Ukraine captured by Russia is going to be cannonfodder in whatever battle Russia wishes to run next. The fact you think that is an acceptable price for piece tells us everything we need to know about you.
I found myself wondering how well other recent PMs would be coping, and found myself looking more favourably on Starmer. Boris would be torn between Zelensky and Trump. Sunak would be a nothing. Truss would be lost. Blair would be too sycophantic to Trump. May may be okay - hard to tell. Cameron - not sure.
In the long, long journey to the next GE, regardless of opinion polls I suspect Starmer will currently be improving his estimation by the British public.
Russia also has the advantage of battle experienced troops and still would if it kicked off in a few years. Having NCOs and troops and officers who have fought in the same type of war would be a massive benefit over fresh and green European troops where the few with combat experience will have it from Afghanistan and some from Iraq - not like for like experiences.
They are about to pick up their “get out of jail free” card for their economy from Trump so have a few years to learn lessons, recover the economy and rebuild.
They would take a big pasting but at a huge cost to Europe in money and men.
You are right though, nuclear blackmail is a powerful thing.
If so, I for one won't be critical.
I suspect SKS having a "good war" will be make no difference either way.
Clearly Putin derangement syndrome exists.
This idea that I just think one way because I'm ignorant of it just doesn't wash. I think there's a huge and corrupting waste of human capital in our welfare and health system where, fundamentally, I think there should be fewer entitlements and the individual should take more responsibility - which would be better for them too.
Modi is a fascist. He likes to hobnob with other fascists.
Europe says that’s unaccceptable and get some concessions
Ukraine says that’s unacceptable and gets more concessions
This assumes a rational negotiation… but if it falls apart what has Ukraine lost?
Time-limit all long-term sickness benefits to 6-12 months, just as employers and insurers do, unless there are extenuating medical reasons.
Plus various whiners who always think they're personally entitled to a tax cut and spending increase.
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
Regardless of all that, I hope he recovers soon.
It's not feasible in a cultural and political sense. The British establishment cannot conceive of any strategic settlement other than timidly peering from behind Superman's cloak.
Tomorrow, Starmer will touch an oak twig and a stone, and turn both to gold. In the afternoon, he will heal the sick of inner city Liverpool, and feed them all from just one loaf of bread and a single fish.
I suspect Jezza is just as fierce a critic of the South Islington Labour branch for their heinous crimes against Socialism as he is Putin's.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
Benedict didn't leave much impression but had the sense to retire.
JP2 was pretty good.
JP1 died quick.
The rest were Italians in the dim and distant.
(1) The Chagos Islands
(2) Tax Relief for Farmers
In the former, he could easily have simply walked away when Mauritius started demanding (more and more) money. And the threat to just hand the island to the US is a very real one.
For the latter, there are a number of perfectly sensible compromises that would allow people to keep running family farms while clamping down on the ridiculous tax schemes created by the previous administration.
But I agree that -broadly- he's acquitted himself ok re Trump and Ukraine. So far.
In my opinion we need to be a good deal less starry-eyed about India. They do not wish us well. We should at the very least not be trying to exercise 'soft power' by hosing aid money at them when they have a space programme. The same goes for China.
Why not a UN force?
It was the thing that for a few seconds made my pencil hover over REMAIN/LEAVE all those years ago...
One of the biggest mistake some Remoaners make is this idea that Brexiteers are anti-Europe.
We're not. We simply don't agree with British membership of the EU because we don't subscribe to its central political project to establish the trappings of statehood in pursuit of its goal to build a new country called The European Union.
It needs, I think we'd all agree, to include Norway, Iceland and us, for a start. Plus, for the reasons you outlined, we don't probably don't want Hungary to be a part.
The question is this: do we want to completely cut ties with the US? That is, is the current Trump administration an aberration, and if the European countries step up and put the spending in, then NATO continues? Or is that it? Is NATO effectively over?
Two months ago, I would have said "tough it out, America is ultimately our friend", but the problem is that the current administration doesn't think in terms of long term allies, it thinks transactionally here and now. And the cost to remaining in its orbit is likely to rise and rise.
For that reason, I fear we do need to start thinking beyond NATO.