If Putin has come to the end of the road he might try to take the rest of us with him.
Russian state TV: “Our submarines alone can launch more than 500 nuclear warheads, which guarantees the destruction of the US and NATO for good measure. The principle is: why do we need the world if Russia won’t be in it?” https://twitter.com/ilya_shepelin/status/1498022807627829250
Hell's bells.
Someone needs to stop this madman. And fast.
Moscow has had far more crazed nutcases than Putin over the decades and none of them launched nuclear weapons. They know full well Russia would be leveled if it happened. And they know that Russia will indeed "be in the world" if they don't. This is all an attempt to get others to back down. I.e. a bluff.
His behaviour at the moment is eerily reminiscent of that of Brezhnev in his last years. Crazy foreign ventures. Threats of nuclear annihilation. Trying to sustain over-ambitious military spending at the expense of his country. Rampaging fraud and corruption in the government. The FSB extremely powerful.
Brezhnev, of course, had dementia, complicated by cardiovascular problems and alcoholism.
There may be more to these rumours about Putin's health.
There could be, but I still don't really understand what's going on with him. He clearly is genuinely changed in some ways and embarked on a mad project to take Kiyiv, for instance, or to refer continually to 1940's history.
Yet I wonder what other elements might be performance here, particularly now when he's terrifying the world. Could it be some very strange mixture of elaborately planned theatre and genuine danger and illness, I wonder. We have to take him to a considerable degree at his word when he's making these kinds of threats, ofcourse.
The rounded face could be either Botox or steroids..
Nah, he has always looked like that.
He really hasn't. He has a new football-shaped face
Young Putin was quite cheekboney
Mrs P thinks he looks like he's got Parkinson's.
I just watched his video from earlier today, and he's definitely blinking and twitching in a slightly new way. Something's up.
2002
2022
20 years older, but he has always looked like that.
In Parkinson's blinking is reduced. Unless the sufferer over compensates by over blinking, often to help with reading.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
If you are representative of the Tory Party in 2022, you can all go to hell.
A member of the Belarusian military speaks to the Belarusian troops.
There's something going on with Lukashenko too. He seems to have been critical to the arranging the meeting today, and his form of words for the threat was quite odd.
"We have to be very careful, because nuclear war could be the end of everything." That could be interpreted as a direct threat to Putin and the regime, prophesying its end, as much as anything else, and for a hardman his face looked terrified.
I found this encouraging:
Protesters in Minsk have encircled the building of the General Staff of the Defence Ministry of Belarus and are chanting "Glory to Ukraine!" https://t.co/caj03prp7N
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
If I am on the side that wants to avoid WW3 and nuclear war unlike some of the hotheads on here, then proudly so!
I you were Thatcher's son she'd put you up for adoption.
Even Thatcher knew the importance of engaging with Gorbachev not provoking the USSR unnecessarily, that is how the Cold War ended.
Thatcher also famously opposed a reunited Germany as she believed it would be too powerful and agreed to hand back Hong Kong as per our lease as she knew we could never defend it from China.
Thatcher was not a hothead, she engaged in realpolitik as much as any rational leader
Someone, somewhere needs to find a way to stop escalating this. Is there anyone with a cool head?
Wouldn't look for one on PB to be honest. Most here are crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war. Virtual dogs mind, I don't think anyone's joined the legion. But they are doing their bit by getting jolly cross and socking it to that PJohnson character in no uncertain terms.
Lol mate I'm just trying to be realistic but my views don't seem to be welcome
You are shilling for a fascist.
I really am concerned that this poster is a malign influence on the site but then that is a matter for others
@PJohnson has not said anything libellous, or horribly racist, or grotesquely violent towards another poster. He (she?) has not doxxed anyone or broken any other crucial rule
Let him speak. That is the point of PB. It is actually interesting to hear a quasi-pro-Putin opinion, when we are all so united against Russia. You need the contrary argument to avoid bubblethink
I would normally agree with this. But a couple of people, notably @rcs1000 have tried to interrogate PJohnson on his / her views, but they just ignore them and carry on posting short, increasingly pro Putin, provocations. There have been many today (30 or 40?), and it is starting to get annoying, from my perspective at least.
So scroll past and do not engage. That's the point
We should not ban people for opinions we find irritatingly stupid or childishly repetitive, and tediously immune to any debate. There would not be a Scot Nat left on the site, for a start
If Putin has come to the end of the road he might try to take the rest of us with him.
Russian state TV: “Our submarines alone can launch more than 500 nuclear warheads, which guarantees the destruction of the US and NATO for good measure. The principle is: why do we need the world if Russia won’t be in it?” https://twitter.com/ilya_shepelin/status/1498022807627829250
Hell's bells.
Someone needs to stop this madman. And fast.
Moscow has had far more crazed nutcases than Putin over the decades and none of them launched nuclear weapons. They know full well Russia would be leveled if it happened. And they know that Russia will indeed "be in the world" if they don't. This is all an attempt to get others to back down. I.e. a bluff.
His behaviour at the moment is eerily reminiscent of that of Brezhnev in his last years. Crazy foreign ventures. Threats of nuclear annihilation. Trying to sustain over-ambitious military spending at the expense of his country. Rampaging fraud and corruption in the government. The FSB extremely powerful.
Brezhnev, of course, had dementia, complicated by cardiovascular problems and alcoholism.
There may be more to these rumours about Putin's health.
There could be, but I still don't really understand what's going on with him. He clearly is genuinely changed in some ways and embarked on a mad project to take Kiyiv, for instance, or to refer continually to 1940's history.
Yet I wonder what other elements might be performance here, particularly now when he's terrifying the world. Could it be some very strange mixture of elaborately planned theatre and genuine danger and illness, I wonder. We have to take him to a considerable degree at his word when he's making these kinds of threats, ofcourse.
The rounded face could be either Botox or steroids..
Nah, he has always looked like that.
He really hasn't. He has a new football-shaped face
Young Putin was quite cheekboney
Mrs P thinks he looks like he's got Parkinson's.
I just watched his video from earlier today, and he's definitely blinking and twitching in a slightly new way. Something's up.
2002
2022
20 years older, but he has always looked like that.
In Parkinson's blinking is reduced. Unless the sufferer over compensates by over blinking, often to help with reading.
A three-mile column of Russian troops and tanks have been seen "moving towards Kyiv" in satellite imagery taken on Sunday.
The images released by Maxar Technologies, a space technology company, showed a large deployment of Russian ground troops moving in the direction of the Ukrainian capital from approximately 40 miles (64 km) away.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
HYUFD is a supporter of right wing autocracy. It is no surprise he is a traitor to Western values.
Traitor is an extremely perjorative term and unfair as well. HYUFD is wrong on this specific issue but no way is he a traitor.
He’s right to oppose an escalation involving NATO.
Half the cabinet’s seats now at risk, reveals new poll
An election today would result in the Tories losing 164 seats, a survey suggests, and only 9 per cent of us believe PM ‘tells the truth’
"An election today" - just a bit of fun, then?
The election will be May 2024. You can take that to the bank.
At this rate, we won't ever get there. Johnson could be PM for eternity.
Is anyone is running a market on armageddon before a GE or New PM? If so, what is the value bet?
Well, the value bet is always on the world surviving, for the reason that if you bet on the apocalypse, you don't get to collect your winnings no matter how attractive the odds were.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
If you are representative of the Tory Party in 2022, you can all go to hell.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
Well yes. There was this "appeasement" policy in the 30s that you may have heard about.
Meanwhile Kharkiv and Kyiv still in Ukrainian hands. Russian stockmarket looks to melt down on Monday. Putin is really in danger of the whole thing backfiring. An intervention by a major Western power - say the RAF enforcing a no-fly zone - could really make the difference between a Russian Ukraine and the end of Putin.
Our policy makers should think about how Putin murdered British citizens on British soil and how now is their chance to ensure appropriate consequences.
I know I don't post much so I won't be missed but I'm quitting this forum for a while because of my anxiety levels. This is in no small part due to idiots like you who insist on trying to talk the world into nuclear war. Before I go let me repeat the minute a British jet comes into contact with a Russian one it's game over. If you want to see the Ukrainian flag fluttering over an irradiated wasteland then that's your affair but I sincerely hope no one in a position of power listens to you.
Good riddance to muppets like you that think we must just let Putin do whatever he wants because he would willingly have every city in Russia wiped out in nuclear attacks. You are the people who would argue for battered wives submitting to their abusers to stop them getting hurt.
As someone who has suffered from domestic abuse go fuck yourself.
As a victim of domestic abuse, I would have thought you would not want to submit an entire nation to decades of imperialism abuse, but apparently empathy is expected but not given.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
If I am on the side that wants to avoid WW3 and nuclear war unlike some of the hotheads on here, then proudly so!
Your strategy fails on its own terms If countries are prevented by "spheres of influence" international relations from entering into mutual defence treaties, they will pursue unilateral defence solutions. That is, nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation is a really good idea because he risk that weapons fall into the hands of an unstable national leader (hmm) is higher the more countries have them. Additionally, proliferation increases the risk that non-state actors acquire them, and the spectre of radiological terror attacks suddenly becomes a lot likelier.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
If you are representative of the Tory Party in 2022, you can all go to hell.
Well if hotheads like you take charge we will all be going to the afterlife pretty swiftly anyway, as we would be heading for a nuclear war with Russia!
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
HYUFD is a supporter of right wing autocracy. It is no surprise he is a traitor to Western values.
Traitor is an extremely perjorative term and unfair as well. HYUFD is wrong on this specific issue but no way is he a traitor.
He’s right to oppose an escalation involving NATO.
He also supports abandonment of democracy and UDI if republicans become a majority in NI, and supported the June 6th insurrection in the US. He may not be a traitor to Britain but he is certainly a traitor to British values of democracy, the rule of law and liberty.
Half the cabinet’s seats now at risk, reveals new poll
An election today would result in the Tories losing 164 seats, a survey suggests, and only 9 per cent of us believe PM ‘tells the truth’
"An election today" - just a bit of fun, then?
The election will be May 2024. You can take that to the bank.
At this rate, we won't ever get there. Johnson could be PM for eternity.
Is anyone is running a market on armageddon before a GE or New PM? If so, what is the value bet?
Well, the value bet is always on the world surviving, for the reason that if you bet on the apocalypse, you don't get to collect your winnings no matter how attractive the odds were.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
Yes, well there in lies the difference between us. My view is that what’s “British” has evolved a touch since Palmerston left office. But then you are a Tory - picking the mid 19th century is pretty radical compared to some of your colleagues.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
Well yes. There was this "appeasement" policy in the 30s that you may have heard about.
Even Hitler did not have nuclear weapons unlike Putin's Russia.
Plus the appeasement policy allowed us time to rearm
A member of the Belarusian military speaks to the Belarusian troops.
There's something going on with Lukashenko too. He seems to have been critical to the arranging the meeting today, and his form of words for the threat was quite odd.
"We have to be very careful, because nuclear war could be the end of everything." That could be interpreted as a direct threat to Putin and the regime, prophesying its end, as much as anything else, and for a hardman his face looked terrified.
I found this encouraging:
Protesters in Minsk have encircled the building of the General Staff of the Defence Ministry of Belarus and are chanting "Glory to Ukraine!" https://t.co/caj03prp7N
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
HYUFD is a supporter of right wing autocracy. It is no surprise he is a traitor to Western values.
Traitor is an extremely perjorative term and unfair as well. HYUFD is wrong on this specific issue but no way is he a traitor.
He’s right to oppose an escalation involving NATO.
He also supports abandonment of democracy and UDI if republicans become a majority in NI, and supported the June 6th insurrection in the US. He may not be a traitor to Britain but he is certainly a traitor to British values of democracy, the rule of law and liberty.
Er, for all his faults i don't think HYUFD supported the Jan 6th insurrection. Have you confused him with somebody else?
In the latest attempts by Russian trolls we have zerohedge @zerohedge · 3m Former White House Physician Says Biden Is Not Cognitively Fit To Deal With Russia Crisis
This is not news. He's a GOP congressman, prominent Trumpist, (also with a dubious back history involving copious amounts of alcohol).
Believe me, this is not Russian trolls. This is what's actually happening within the modern Republican party.
Don't forget the GOP voted overwhelmingly a few years ago to halt US military aid to Ukraine.
Weeks ago I mentioned that the Russians left themselves few such avenues because the demands were simply not acceptable but there were also some potential wins. Lets bear in mind what the objectives could be that could be claimed as successes.
1. LPR & DPR recognition/ absorption. This is de facto anyway. The problem comes with the idea if that the territory that defines those two is bigger than they are now
2. Weaken the Ukrainian military to such a state that it represents no threat to the LPR & DPR. Open question here, will require more conflict but clearly this current conflict degrades the Ukrainian military
3. Take NATO membership off the table. This is viable, even if not in a written agreement, it could be claimed in practice because if that kind of trouble is the price for it, maybe Ukraine & NATO will think twice.
Some thinking out there that Putin may accept something to bail. Remember the publicly stated objectives of the Kremlin can be seen as a bit vague, plus the Russian military are stretched here, they have committed two thirds of their in-theater ground forces so far, and those in-theater forces represent about 70% of their standing army combat power.
One thing though, Ukraine would be mad to accept a ceasefire for a short period with positions in place unless there is clear sense of an agreement. That will potentially give Russia the chance to shore up its tail which has proven a problem for them
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
If I am on the side that wants to avoid WW3 and nuclear war unlike some of the hotheads on here, then proudly so!
I you were Thatcher's son she'd put you up for adoption.
Even Thatcher knew the importance of engaging with Gorbachev not provoking the USSR unnecessarily, that is how the Cold War ended.
Thatcher also famously opposed a reunited Germany as she believed it would be too powerful and agreed to hand back Hong Kong as per our lease as she knew we could never defend it from China.
Thatcher was not a hothead, she engaged in realpolitik as much as any rational leader
By the time your career in politics reaches the HoC, I sincerely hope, by then, you will have grown a pair.
An optimistic but I feel plausible scenario is demoralisation and mutiny spreads in the Russian armed forces and in the police, middle ranking officers join in and the senior staff find a way to remove Putin.
That is how the Carnation Revolution happened, disillusioned junior officers, unhappy with being cannon fodder in colonial wars. A mutiny, then a free country, albeit quite an abrupt and chaotic end to the Portuguese Empire.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
Well yes. There was this "appeasement" policy in the 30s that you may have heard about.
Even Hitler did not have nuclear weapons unlike Putin's Russia.
Plus the appeasement policy allowed us time to rearm
Oh my God, you’re defending a policy that was abandoned and repudiated by even it’s own supporters in about 1938!
There needs to be a massive carrot to encourage the Russian resistance: literally the lifting of every economic restriction, free trade deals, cooperation agreements and exchange programmes for students etc if they destroy Putin and his gangsters.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
Well yes. There was this "appeasement" policy in the 30s that you may have heard about.
Even Hitler did not have nuclear weapons unlike Putin's Russia.
Plus the appeasement policy allowed us time to rearm
Er - for most of the period of appeasement there was no rearmament. There are arguments justifying, eg. Munich on those grounds (Chamberlain suddenly realised we were screwed if we went to war then) but not most of the earlier 30s when Germany was basically allowed to massively rearm when we did nothing.
Also you were the one justifying your views now by calling to history. The prospect of WW2 was seen as pretty disastrous for the world in the 30s. Nuclear weapons weren't even envisaged.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
If I am on the side that wants to avoid WW3 and nuclear war unlike some of the hotheads on here, then proudly so!
I you were Thatcher's son she'd put you up for adoption.
Even Thatcher knew the importance of engaging with Gorbachev not provoking the USSR unnecessarily, that is how the Cold War ended.
Thatcher also famously opposed a reunited Germany as she believed it would be too powerful and agreed to hand back Hong Kong as per our lease as she knew we could never defend it from China.
Thatcher was not a hothead, she engaged in realpolitik as much as any rational leader
By the time your career in politics reaches the HoC, I sincerely hope, by then, you will have grown a pair.
I feel that being on the Payroll Vote would be the perfect role for Mr FUD.
Meanwhile Kharkiv and Kyiv still in Ukrainian hands. Russian stockmarket looks to melt down on Monday. Putin is really in danger of the whole thing backfiring. An intervention by a major Western power - say the RAF enforcing a no-fly zone - could really make the difference between a Russian Ukraine and the end of Putin.
Our policy makers should think about how Putin murdered British citizens on British soil and how now is their chance to ensure appropriate consequences.
I know I don't post much so I won't be missed but I'm quitting this forum for a while because of my anxiety levels. This is in no small part due to idiots like you who insist on trying to talk the world into nuclear war. Before I go let me repeat the minute a British jet comes into contact with a Russian one it's game over. If you want to see the Ukrainian flag fluttering over an irradiated wasteland then that's your affair but I sincerely hope no one in a position of power listens to you.
Good riddance to muppets like you that think we must just let Putin do whatever he wants because he would willingly have every city in Russia wiped out in nuclear attacks. You are the people who would argue for battered wives submitting to their abusers to stop them getting hurt.
As someone who has suffered from domestic abuse go fuck yourself.
As a victim of domestic abuse, I would have thought you would not want to submit an entire nation to decades of imperialism abuse, but apparently empathy is expected but not given.
@Aslan your suggestion, that the RAF should enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine, is ridiculous, completely unachievable and would be incredibly inflammatory even to attempt.
No one (beyond the PJ troll and @HYUFD it seems) is suggesting capitulating to Putin.
If anything the positive points you highlighted in your original post ("Russian police are starting to lose control of antiwar protests back home, Kharkiv and Kyiv still in Ukrainian hands, Russian stockmarket looks to melt down on Monday") seem to indicate that the policies already in place - support for Ukraine, isolate Russia, financial sanctions - are having a positive effect.
The tricky thing now is how to exit this mess so that it doesn't end in a nuclear armageddon.
Someone, somewhere needs to find a way to stop escalating this. Is there anyone with a cool head?
Wouldn't look for one on PB to be honest. Most here are crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war. Virtual dogs mind, I don't think anyone's joined the legion. But they are doing their bit by getting jolly cross and socking it to that PJohnson character in no uncertain terms.
Lol mate I'm just trying to be realistic but my views don't seem to be welcome
You and Vlad both. He appears as disappointed as you by his reception.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
If I am on the side that wants to avoid WW3 and nuclear war unlike some of the hotheads on here, then proudly so!
I you were Thatcher's son she'd put you up for adoption.
Even Thatcher knew the importance of engaging with Gorbachev not provoking the USSR unnecessarily, that is how the Cold War ended.
Thatcher also famously opposed a reunited Germany as she believed it would be too powerful and agreed to hand back Hong Kong as per our lease as she knew we could never defend it from China.
Thatcher was not a hothead, she engaged in realpolitik as much as any rational leader
Actually our lease wasn't on Hong Kong or Kowloon, only on the New Territories. Mrs Thatcher went further than she had to by the letter of the law. Mainly, aiui, because Hong Kong Island didn't have its own water supply.
There needs to be a massive carrot to encourage the Russian resistance: literally the lifting of every economic restriction, free trade deals, cooperation agreements and exchange programmes for students etc if they destroy Putin and his gangsters.
Make the decision for them as easy as possible.
We should be encouraging whoever might be persuaded to blow up roads and bridges in Russia headed for Ukraine.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
If I am on the side that wants to avoid WW3 and nuclear war unlike some of the hotheads on here, then proudly so!
I you were Thatcher's son she'd put you up for adoption.
Even Thatcher knew the importance of engaging with Gorbachev not provoking the USSR unnecessarily, that is how the Cold War ended.
Thatcher also famously opposed a reunited Germany as she believed it would be too powerful and agreed to hand back Hong Kong as per our lease as she knew we could never defend it from China.
Thatcher was not a hothead, she engaged in realpolitik as much as any rational leader
By the time your career in politics reaches the HoC, I sincerely hope, by then, you will have grown a pair.
HYUFD isn't even fit to pull pints in the Commons' bar.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
It's also stupid. Putin has said time and again he wants to re-establish a greater Russian empire. He's said Ukraine isn't a real country. Sovereignty is whatever he decides it is when he feels like it. Did Zelensky going on about Nato membership push him over the edge? Possibly. But the fundamental problem was always there. He demands submission. Ukrainians will never submit to his rule.
Half the cabinet’s seats now at risk, reveals new poll
An election today would result in the Tories losing 164 seats, a survey suggests, and only 9 per cent of us believe PM ‘tells the truth’
9% finding Johnson honest -though surprisingly high -is likely less than the number that will find Putin cuddly.....
When your reputation is trashed it stays trashed. Even Shakespeare knew it.....
"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed."
There needs to be a massive carrot to encourage the Russian resistance: literally the lifting of every economic restriction, free trade deals, cooperation agreements and exchange programmes for students etc if they destroy Putin and his gangsters.
Make the decision for them as easy as possible.
A promise of a fully stocked Tesco (other supermarkets are available) in every town?
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
If you are representative of the Tory Party in 2022, you can all go to hell.
Well if hotheads like you take charge we will all be going to the afterlife pretty swiftly anyway, as we would be heading for a nuclear war with Russia!
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
Well yes. There was this "appeasement" policy in the 30s that you may have heard about.
Even Hitler did not have nuclear weapons unlike Putin's Russia.
Plus the appeasement policy allowed us time to rearm
Er - for most of the period of appeasement there was no rearmament. There are arguments justifying, eg. Munich on those grounds (Chamberlain suddenly realised we were screwed if we went to war then) but not most of the earlier 30s when Germany was basically allowed to massively rearm when we did nothing.
Also you were the one justifying your views now by calling to history. The prospect of WW2 was seen as pretty disastrous for the world in the 30s. Nuclear weapons weren't even envisaged.
That’s definitely not true. From 1934 on Britain was rearming. Spitfires, hurricanes and lancasters didn’t just appear from nowhere. The shadow factory system was set up. The navy acquired new battleships. The army ended up with wo4kable tanks. Sure most people hoped that war wouldn’t come, but to say we weren’t rearming during the period is totally false.
BREAKING: Chechnya's Kadyrov says he will impose sanctions, including freezing Boris Johnson's assets in Chechen banks and stating 'there is no English tea', according to Russian media.
There is rumour some of his lads have packed up and gone home.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
You're on the wrong side.
If I am on the side that wants to avoid WW3 and nuclear war unlike some of the hotheads on here, then proudly so!
I you were Thatcher's son she'd put you up for adoption.
Even Thatcher knew the importance of engaging with Gorbachev not provoking the USSR unnecessarily, that is how the Cold War ended.
Thatcher also famously opposed a reunited Germany as she believed it would be too powerful and agreed to hand back Hong Kong as per our lease as she knew we could never defend it from China.
Thatcher was not a hothead, she engaged in realpolitik as much as any rational leader
By the time your career in politics reaches the HoC, I sincerely hope, by then, you will have grown a pair.
HYUFD isn't even fit to pull pints in the Commons' bar.
Well if you lot have your way there won't be a Commons' bar, there won't even be a Palace of Westminster, it will have been obliterated with most of London in a nuclear holocaust
If Putin has come to the end of the road he might try to take the rest of us with him.
Russian state TV: “Our submarines alone can launch more than 500 nuclear warheads, which guarantees the destruction of the US and NATO for good measure. The principle is: why do we need the world if Russia won’t be in it?” https://twitter.com/ilya_shepelin/status/1498022807627829250
Hell's bells.
Someone needs to stop this madman. And fast.
Moscow has had far more crazed nutcases than Putin over the decades and none of them launched nuclear weapons. They know full well Russia would be leveled if it happened. And they know that Russia will indeed "be in the world" if they don't. This is all an attempt to get others to back down. I.e. a bluff.
His behaviour at the moment is eerily reminiscent of that of Brezhnev in his last years. Crazy foreign ventures. Threats of nuclear annihilation. Trying to sustain over-ambitious military spending at the expense of his country. Rampaging fraud and corruption in the government. The FSB extremely powerful.
Brezhnev, of course, had dementia, complicated by cardiovascular problems and alcoholism.
There may be more to these rumours about Putin's health.
There could be, but I still don't really understand what's going on with him. He clearly is genuinely changed in some ways and embarked on a mad project to take Kiyiv, for instance, or to refer continually to 1940's history.
Yet I wonder what other elements might be performance here, particularly now when he's terrifying the world. Could it be some very strange mixture of elaborately planned theatre and genuine danger and illness, I wonder. We have to take him to a considerable degree at his word when he's making these kinds of threats, ofcourse.
The rounded face could be either Botox or steroids..
Nah, he has always looked like that.
He really hasn't. He has a new football-shaped face
Young Putin was quite cheekboney
Mrs P thinks he looks like he's got Parkinson's.
I just watched his video from earlier today, and he's definitely blinking and twitching in a slightly new way. Something's up.
2002
2022
20 years older, but he has always looked like that.
But I've not seen him twitching and blinking fast like that before. It wasn't so much the face but the movements, which also look suppressed by something, I would say. As a medical man you might find the video of interest - I would be interested to hear what you think, too.
Blinking is a sign of nervousness. Parkinsonism generally reduces blinking, indeed patients often have to consciously blink. Occasionally it causes blepharospasm, but that looks different to blinking.
Weeks ago I mentioned that the Russians left themselves few such avenues because the demands were simply not acceptable but there were also some potential wins. Lets bear in mind what the objectives could be that could be claimed as successes.
1. LPR & DPR recognition/ absorption. This is de facto anyway. The problem comes with the idea if that the territory that defines those two is bigger than they are now
2. Weaken the Ukrainian military to such a state that it represents no threat to the LPR & DPR. Open question here, will require more conflict but clearly this current conflict degrades the Ukrainian military
3. Take NATO membership off the table. This is viable, even if not in a written agreement, it could be claimed in practice because if that kind of trouble is the price for it, maybe Ukraine & NATO will think twice.
Some thinking out there that Putin may accept something to bail. Remember the publicly stated objectives of the Kremlin can be seen as a bit vague, plus the Russian military are stretched here, they have committed two thirds of their in-theater ground forces so far, and those in-theater forces represent about 70% of their standing army combat power.
One thing though, Ukraine would be mad to accept a ceasefire for a short period with positions in place unless there is clear sense of an agreement. That will potentially give Russia the chance to shore up its tail which has proven a problem for them
1. Agreed.
2. Yes, I can see that, although it's problematic, as you indicate.
3. I don't know why NATO membership was ever on the table. Was never going to happen and was never necessary.
Not sure I agree a ceasefire necessarily helps Russia. It's isolated internationally and the war is an economic disaster. Russia surely needs a short war?
There needs to be a massive carrot to encourage the Russian resistance: literally the lifting of every economic restriction, free trade deals, cooperation agreements and exchange programmes for students etc if they destroy Putin and his gangsters.
Make the decision for them as easy as possible.
We should be encouraging whoever might be persuaded to blow up roads and bridges in Russia headed for Ukraine.
We do need to love bomb the ordinary Russian people. There isn't a great amount of evidence they are behind this. Which is another rather surprising aspect of the past few days.
Really interesting thread. Especially with the tranches of troops, we're already seeing regular issues with the first line rushing too fast. I'm still of the view that unless the US deploy some re-painted drones UA's defeat in conventional warfare is inevitable. However, Russia does not have the resources or willpower to suppress Ukraine, especially if the 10,000 odd soldiers trained in insurgency by the CIA/SAS put up a resistance. Watching cities like Melitopol and others that come under occupation for signs of such activity is important.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
You see everything in absolutes don’t you? The choice isn’t between “war with Russia” and “leave Ukraine to it”…
There needs to be a massive carrot to encourage the Russian resistance: literally the lifting of every economic restriction, free trade deals, cooperation agreements and exchange programmes for students etc if they destroy Putin and his gangsters.
Make the decision for them as easy as possible.
A promise of a fully stocked Tesco (other supermarkets are available) in every town?
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
I'm not a Tory, but much of HYUFD's view on the particular point is perfectly sensible.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
Who wants to go to war with Russia but you are talking appeasement
You were not alive when my wife and I went to bed every night terrified of a full blown nuclear war between Russia and the US over the Cuban missile crisis and strength won the day
My wife and I never thought history would repeat itself but it is and we have to stand up to Putin with every tool we have got
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
You're all over the place. You argue that we shouldn't have allowed ANY of the ex-Soviet states into NATO. But it's not clear if you think we should now, having let them in, defend them if attacked.
And i have to say that i find the thought of you accusing other people of being "hot-headed" over military affairs somewhat... er... interesting. After some of the things you have advocated in response to Scottish Independence, or France taking action against fishermen, or Spain doing something with Gibraltar, or...
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Don't you think there's a possibility that if the Baltic states were not part of NATO they'd be in danger of being invaded by Russia and Belarus at the moment?
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
There needs to be a massive carrot to encourage the Russian resistance: literally the lifting of every economic restriction, free trade deals, cooperation agreements and exchange programmes for students etc if they destroy Putin and his gangsters.
Make the decision for them as easy as possible.
A promise of a fully stocked Tesco (other supermarkets are available) in every town?
There needs to be a massive carrot to encourage the Russian resistance: literally the lifting of every economic restriction, free trade deals, cooperation agreements and exchange programmes for students etc if they destroy Putin and his gangsters.
Make the decision for them as easy as possible.
We should be encouraging whoever might be persuaded to blow up roads and bridges in Russia headed for Ukraine.
We do need to love bomb the ordinary Russian people. There isn't a great amount of evidence they are behind this. Which is another rather surprising aspect of the past few days.
I've been trying to direct all of my vitriol towards Putin, rather than Russia.
Putin is a huge problem for the world, but he's a bigger problem for Russia.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
Who wants to go to war with Russia but you are talking appeasement
You were not alive when my wife and I went to bed every night terrified of a full blown nuclear war between Russia and the US over the Cuban missile crisis and strength won the day
My wife and I never thought history would repeat itself but it is and we have to stand up to Putin with every tool we have got
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
Well yes. There was this "appeasement" policy in the 30s that you may have heard about.
Even Hitler did not have nuclear weapons unlike Putin's Russia.
Plus the appeasement policy allowed us time to rearm
Er - for most of the period of appeasement there was no rearmament. There are arguments justifying, eg. Munich on those grounds (Chamberlain suddenly realised we were screwed if we went to war then) but not most of the earlier 30s when Germany was basically allowed to massively rearm when we did nothing.
Also you were the one justifying your views now by calling to history. The prospect of WW2 was seen as pretty disastrous for the world in the 30s. Nuclear weapons weren't even envisaged.
That’s definitely not true. From 1934 on Britain was rearming. Spitfires, hurricanes and lancasters didn’t just appear from nowhere. The shadow factory system was set up. The navy acquired new battleships. The army ended up with wo4kable tanks. Sure most people hoped that war wouldn’t come, but to say we weren’t rearming during the period is totally false.
Re-armament started before Hitler came to power - the previous German government laid down the pocket battleships. In response the Navy Vote (UK budget for the Navy) was massively increased, and smaller but still significant sums began to be added to the Air Force and Army budgets.
Most was spent, as you say, on building industrial capability to build weapons, rather than directly on weapons.
Someone, somewhere needs to find a way to stop escalating this. Is there anyone with a cool head?
Wouldn't look for one on PB to be honest. Most here are crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war. Virtual dogs mind, I don't think anyone's joined the legion. But they are doing their bit by getting jolly cross and socking it to that PJohnson character in no uncertain terms.
Lol mate I'm just trying to be realistic but my views don't seem to be welcome
You are shilling for a fascist.
I really am concerned that this poster is a malign influence on the site but then that is a matter for others
@PJohnson has not said anything libellous, or horribly racist, or grotesquely violent towards another poster. He (she?) has not doxxed anyone or broken any other crucial rule
Let him speak. That is the point of PB. It is actually interesting to hear a quasi-pro-Putin opinion, when we are all so united against Russia. You need the contrary argument to avoid bubblethink
I don’t mind his hanging around, but his failure to engage with anyone else gets a bit tedious. It’s a bit like the pointless ads on Twitter.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
Who wants to go to war with Russia but you are talking appeasement
You were not alive when my wife and I went to bed every night terrified of a full blown nuclear war between Russia and the US over the Cuban missile crisis and strength won the day
My wife and I never thought history would repeat itself but it is and we have to stand up to Putin with every tool we have got
Well, strength and Kennedy’s backroom deal to remove US missiles from Turkey.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
Who wants to go to war with Russia but you are talking appeasement
You were not alive when my wife and I went to bed every night terrified of a full blown nuclear war between Russia and the US over the Cuban missile crisis and strength won the day
My wife and I never thought history would repeat itself but it is and we have to stand up to Putin with every tool we have got
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
It makes you a coward
That's pure emotive speak. We're dealing with basic calculations of global survival.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
It makes you a coward
No it makes me a realist.
There is nothing cowardly about opposing going to war over Ukraine, a non NATO power, which based on Putin's statements will likely go nuclear
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
You see everything in absolutes don’t you? The choice isn’t between “war with Russia” and “leave Ukraine to it”…
It’s also striking that, like many Tories I see speak, you no doubt idolise Churchill and Thatcher without realising how they would react to what you say.
@phildstewart BREAKING - The Russian central bank has ordered market players to reject foreign clients' bids to sell Russian securities from 0400 GMT on Monday, according to a central bank document seen by Reuters.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Don't you think there's a possibility that if the Baltic states were not part of NATO they'd be in danger of being invaded by Russia and Belarus at the moment?
That would have been up to them to massively increase their defence spending to ward off the Russians but they should not have been brought into NATO. NATO should have stopped its expansion at Poland and Romania
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
Who wants to go to war with Russia but you are talking appeasement
You were not alive when my wife and I went to bed every night terrified of a full blown nuclear war between Russia and the US over the Cuban missile crisis and strength won the day
My wife and I never thought history would repeat itself but it is and we have to stand up to Putin with every tool we have got
Did Kennedy invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis? No
We are relying on the tact and diplomatic finesse of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson.
No we aren't.
The time for tact was before Russia invaded. Macron tried that and it was a disaster (no objection to him trying).
Boris has been through this wonderfully blunt and untactful. Between Macron and Boris there was a good cop/bad cop dynamic.
That last thing that is needed at the minute is tact.
You lived through the dick-shrivelling embarrassment of Lizzie Goes To Moscow, and you are still prepared to have a pop at Macron?
He is an absolute moron
Is anyone not a moron in your eyes, aside from yourself and in-the-pay-of-Russia-sex-pest Salmond?
(Gets ready for the usual stream of ill-directed verbal diarrhoea).
you flatter yourself , go get a life saddo. Ill-educated troll.
Usual stream - tick
ill-directed - tick
verbal diarrhoea - tick
How sad get one get, now F**k off and bore someone else to death, you ignorant cretin.
If only you took your insults and followed your own advice.
Oh Dear Mr Blowhard joins the fray. You know you are in trouble when you are only supported by the W-eak one. Gives us a few of your usual boasts about what a big shot you are , make us laugh some more.
I don’t remember boosting - I remember pointing out that your arguments are so weak all you have is insults.
The pub bore that hasn’t realised he’s drunk his brains away
Dear dear , is that the best you can manage. That from the cretin who said I had dementia. Go fuck yourself you moronic shitpot.
As I said in my first post, if all youve got is insults what’s the point in posting.
Btw for reference this is my mental image of you (probably taken on one of your better days)
Get carted you sleazy shitpot, hopefully you get your comeuppance , nasty creaturees like you who wish ill on people deserve all you get. Now F*** off and pester someone who gives a shit, you lowlife bottom feeder.
Oh btw, I checked this month's pay slip and just under "Income tax", "Student loan" and "Cycle to work" there is something called "Malc's state pension".
Please explain.
You f***ing Dickhead I have paid enough tax to pay plenty of pensions , a f**kwit like you paying a few quid a week pays for F*** all. Plastic little shithead..
If Putin has come to the end of the road he might try to take the rest of us with him.
Russian state TV: “Our submarines alone can launch more than 500 nuclear warheads, which guarantees the destruction of the US and NATO for good measure. The principle is: why do we need the world if Russia won’t be in it?” https://twitter.com/ilya_shepelin/status/1498022807627829250
Hell's bells.
Someone needs to stop this madman. And fast.
Moscow has had far more crazed nutcases than Putin over the decades and none of them launched nuclear weapons. They know full well Russia would be leveled if it happened. And they know that Russia will indeed "be in the world" if they don't. This is all an attempt to get others to back down. I.e. a bluff.
His behaviour at the moment is eerily reminiscent of that of Brezhnev in his last years. Crazy foreign ventures. Threats of nuclear annihilation. Trying to sustain over-ambitious military spending at the expense of his country. Rampaging fraud and corruption in the government. The FSB extremely powerful.
Brezhnev, of course, had dementia, complicated by cardiovascular problems and alcoholism.
There may be more to these rumours about Putin's health.
There could be, but I still don't really understand what's going on with him. He clearly is genuinely changed in some ways and embarked on a mad project to take Kiyiv, for instance, or to refer continually to 1940's history.
Yet I wonder what other elements might be performance here, particularly now when he's terrifying the world. Could it be some very strange mixture of elaborately planned theatre and genuine danger and illness, I wonder. We have to take him to a considerable degree at his word when he's making these kinds of threats, ofcourse.
The rounded face could be either Botox or steroids..
Nah, he has always looked like that.
He really hasn't. He has a new football-shaped face
Young Putin was quite cheekboney
Mrs P thinks he looks like he's got Parkinson's.
I just watched his video from earlier today, and he's definitely blinking and twitching in a slightly new way. Something's up.
2002
2022
20 years older, but he has always looked like that.
But I've not seen him twitching and blinking fast like that before. It wasn't so much the face but the movements, which also look suppressed by something, I would say. As a medical man you might find the video of interest - I would be interested to hear what you think, too.
Blinking is a sign of nervousness. Parkinsonism generally reduces blinking, indeed patients often have to consciously blink. Occasionally it causes blepharospasm, but that looks different to blinking.
My late father's Parkinson's manifested itself in shuffling and shaking rather than a desire for nuclear anihilation. Funny how Parkinson's affects prople differently.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
It makes you a coward
No it makes me a realist.
There is nothing cowardly about opposing going to war over Ukraine, a non NATO power, which based on Putin's statements will likely go nuclear
It certainly isn't "likely" or anywhere close. I have always thought it odd how far out of touch you seemed to even right wing Tories I know. Now I am wondering whether you have other motivations. Had anyone on PB met you? For someone who spends his life on here, have you gone to a get together?
Someone, somewhere needs to find a way to stop escalating this. Is there anyone with a cool head?
Wouldn't look for one on PB to be honest. Most here are crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war. Virtual dogs mind, I don't think anyone's joined the legion. But they are doing their bit by getting jolly cross and socking it to that PJohnson character in no uncertain terms.
Lol mate I'm just trying to be realistic but my views don't seem to be welcome
You were posting from an IP address that is on several spam blacklists.
You occasionally use English in a way that suggests you are not a native speaker.
You ignore questions, and prefer to simply spout propaganda.
“ RUSSIAN CENTRAL BANK ORDERS MARKET PLAYERS TO REJECT FOREIGN CLIENTS' BIDS TO SELL RUSSIAN SECURITIES FROM 0400 GMT ON FEB 28 — CENTRAL BANK DOCUMENT SEEN BY REUTERS”
We are relying on the tact and diplomatic finesse of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson.
No we aren't.
The time for tact was before Russia invaded. Macron tried that and it was a disaster (no objection to him trying).
Boris has been through this wonderfully blunt and untactful. Between Macron and Boris there was a good cop/bad cop dynamic.
That last thing that is needed at the minute is tact.
You lived through the dick-shrivelling embarrassment of Lizzie Goes To Moscow, and you are still prepared to have a pop at Macron?
He is an absolute moron
Is anyone not a moron in your eyes, aside from yourself and in-the-pay-of-Russia-sex-pest Salmond?
(Gets ready for the usual stream of ill-directed verbal diarrhoea).
you flatter yourself , go get a life saddo. Ill-educated troll.
Usual stream - tick
ill-directed - tick
verbal diarrhoea - tick
How sad get one get, now F**k off and bore someone else to death, you ignorant cretin.
If only you took your insults and followed your own advice.
Oh Dear Mr Blowhard joins the fray. You know you are in trouble when you are only supported by the W-eak one. Gives us a few of your usual boasts about what a big shot you are , make us laugh some more.
I don’t remember boosting - I remember pointing out that your arguments are so weak all you have is insults.
The pub bore that hasn’t realised he’s drunk his brains away
Dear dear , is that the best you can manage. That from the cretin who said I had dementia. Go fuck yourself you moronic shitpot.
As I said in my first post, if all youve got is insults what’s the point in posting.
Btw for reference this is my mental image of you (probably taken on one of your better days)
Get carted you sleazy shitpot, hopefully you get your comeuppance , nasty creaturees like you who wish ill on people deserve all you get. Now F*** off and pester someone who gives a shit, you lowlife bottom feeder. PS: So great at the IT you boast about that you cannot even post an image , says it all.
You upset about something, Malc?
OKC yes, creepy lowlifes like the one in the post. I will not forget his post about me.
If Putin has come to the end of the road he might try to take the rest of us with him.
Russian state TV: “Our submarines alone can launch more than 500 nuclear warheads, which guarantees the destruction of the US and NATO for good measure. The principle is: why do we need the world if Russia won’t be in it?” https://twitter.com/ilya_shepelin/status/1498022807627829250
Hell's bells.
Someone needs to stop this madman. And fast.
Moscow has had far more crazed nutcases than Putin over the decades and none of them launched nuclear weapons. They know full well Russia would be leveled if it happened. And they know that Russia will indeed "be in the world" if they don't. This is all an attempt to get others to back down. I.e. a bluff.
His behaviour at the moment is eerily reminiscent of that of Brezhnev in his last years. Crazy foreign ventures. Threats of nuclear annihilation. Trying to sustain over-ambitious military spending at the expense of his country. Rampaging fraud and corruption in the government. The FSB extremely powerful.
Brezhnev, of course, had dementia, complicated by cardiovascular problems and alcoholism.
There may be more to these rumours about Putin's health.
There could be, but I still don't really understand what's going on with him. He clearly is genuinely changed in some ways and embarked on a mad project to take Kiyiv, for instance, or to refer continually to 1940's history.
Yet I wonder what other elements might be performance here, particularly now when he's terrifying the world. Could it be some very strange mixture of elaborately planned theatre and genuine danger and illness, I wonder. We have to take him to a considerable degree at his word when he's making these kinds of threats, ofcourse.
The rounded face could be either Botox or steroids..
Nah, he has always looked like that.
He really hasn't. He has a new football-shaped face
Young Putin was quite cheekboney
Mrs P thinks he looks like he's got Parkinson's.
I just watched his video from earlier today, and he's definitely blinking and twitching in a slightly new way. Something's up.
2002
2022
20 years older, but he has always looked like that.
In Parkinson's blinking is reduced. Unless the sufferer over compensates by over blinking, often to help with reading.
He's not looking too bad for 69. You can tell he's had some work done, but not a total horror movie like Biden.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
It makes you a coward
No it makes me a realist.
There is nothing cowardly about opposing going to war over Ukraine, a non NATO power, which based on Putin's statements will likely go nuclear
It certainly isn't "likely" or anywhere close. I have always thought it odd how far out of touch you seemed to even right wing Tories I know. Now I am wondering whether you have other motivations. Had anyone on PB met you? For someone who spends his life on here, have you gone to a get together?
I don't know if he's met any PBers, but it isn't hard from his (long term) posting history to work out who he really is.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
Who wants to go to war with Russia but you are talking appeasement
You were not alive when my wife and I went to bed every night terrified of a full blown nuclear war between Russia and the US over the Cuban missile crisis and strength won the day
My wife and I never thought history would repeat itself but it is and we have to stand up to Putin with every tool we have got
Did Kennedy invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis? No
Precisely Kennedy wanted to deescalate...we have many keyboard warriors on here who don't know the horror of war
We are relying on the tact and diplomatic finesse of Liz Truss and Boris Johnson.
No we aren't.
The time for tact was before Russia invaded. Macron tried that and it was a disaster (no objection to him trying).
Boris has been through this wonderfully blunt and untactful. Between Macron and Boris there was a good cop/bad cop dynamic.
That last thing that is needed at the minute is tact.
You lived through the dick-shrivelling embarrassment of Lizzie Goes To Moscow, and you are still prepared to have a pop at Macron?
He is an absolute moron
Is anyone not a moron in your eyes, aside from yourself and in-the-pay-of-Russia-sex-pest Salmond?
(Gets ready for the usual stream of ill-directed verbal diarrhoea).
you flatter yourself , go get a life saddo. Ill-educated troll.
Usual stream - tick
ill-directed - tick
verbal diarrhoea - tick
How sad get one get, now F**k off and bore someone else to death, you ignorant cretin.
If only you took your insults and followed your own advice.
Oh Dear Mr Blowhard joins the fray. You know you are in trouble when you are only supported by the W-eak one. Gives us a few of your usual boasts about what a big shot you are , make us laugh some more.
I don’t remember boosting - I remember pointing out that your arguments are so weak all you have is insults.
The pub bore that hasn’t realised he’s drunk his brains away
Dear dear , is that the best you can manage. That from the cretin who said I had dementia. Go fuck yourself you moronic shitpot.
As I said in my first post, if all youve got is insults what’s the point in posting.
Btw for reference this is my mental image of you (probably taken on one of your better days)
Get carted you sleazy shitpot, hopefully you get your comeuppance , nasty creaturees like you who wish ill on people deserve all you get. Now F*** off and pester someone who gives a shit, you lowlife bottom feeder.
Oh btw, I checked this month's pay slip and just under "Income tax", "Student loan" and "Cycle to work" there is something called "Malc's state pension".
Please explain.
You f***ing Dickhead I have paid enough tax to pay plenty of pensions , a f**kwit like you paying a few quid a week pays for F*** all. Plastic little shithead..
Turns out there are some big Salmon left in the Spey!
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
Rubbish. There is nothing quisling about opposing expanding NATO from what began as a defensive organisation to defend western Europe in 1949, which was absolutely right from a UK perspective, to what in Russian eyes has become an aggressive organisation expanding right to the borders of Russia.
It was always asking for trouble
“Yes sir, mr Putin sir. Where would you like our security boundary sir? Yes, absolutely you can dominate your neighbours and we will let you carry on”.
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
What utter rubbish.
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
You are a right wing Faragist and should be in RFM not the conservative party
What a load of rubbish.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
It makes you a coward
No it makes me a realist.
There is nothing cowardly about opposing going to war over Ukraine, a non NATO power, which based on Putin's statements will likely go nuclear
Comments
That’s basically your policy. It’s not humane. It’s not British.
Thatcher also famously opposed a reunited Germany as she believed it would be too powerful and agreed to hand back Hong Kong as per our lease as she knew we could never defend it from China.
Thatcher was not a hothead, she engaged in realpolitik as much as any rational leader
I agree with you btw.
The images released by Maxar Technologies, a space technology company, showed a large deployment of Russian ground troops moving in the direction of the Ukrainian capital from approximately 40 miles (64 km) away.
Telegraph.
===
Meanwhile, tomorrow RU banks will collapse.
AND proclaiming (on cue?) that the invasion is NOT fault of Putin, but rather Joe Biden and/or the Ukrainians.
Meaning the Dog of War must be . . . wait for it . . . Hunter Biden!
Jesus wept.
Why Russia will lose this war?
Much of the "realist" discourse is about accepting Putin's victory, cuz it's *guaranteed*. But how do we know it is?
I'll argue that analysts 1) overrate Russian army 2) underrate Ukrainian one 3) misunderstand Russian strategy & political goals🧵
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1497993363076915204?s=20
In the 19th century we were often brutally mercenary in our realpolitik. The idea the UK is and has been some sort of liberal internationalist crusader going to war against any regime which is not the epitome of perfect liberalism is absurd.
I am a conservative grounded in realism, not a liberal grounded in idealism even when it leads us into unnecessary wars
He’s right to oppose an escalation involving NATO.
If countries are prevented by "spheres of influence" international relations from entering into mutual defence treaties, they will pursue unilateral defence solutions. That is, nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation is a really good idea because he risk that weapons fall into the hands of an unstable national leader (hmm) is higher the more countries have them.
Additionally, proliferation increases the risk that non-state actors acquire them, and the spectre of radiological terror attacks suddenly becomes a lot likelier.
Plus the appeasement policy allowed us time to rearm
Which would be nice.
Weeks ago I mentioned that the Russians left themselves few such avenues because the demands were simply not acceptable but there were also some potential wins. Lets bear in mind what the objectives could be that could be claimed as successes.
1. LPR & DPR recognition/ absorption. This is de facto anyway. The problem comes with the idea if that the territory that defines those two is bigger than they are now
2. Weaken the Ukrainian military to such a state that it represents no threat to the LPR & DPR. Open question here, will require more conflict but clearly this current conflict degrades the Ukrainian military
3. Take NATO membership off the table. This is viable, even if not in a written agreement, it could be claimed in practice because if that kind of trouble is the price for it, maybe Ukraine & NATO will think twice.
Some thinking out there that Putin may accept something to bail. Remember the publicly stated objectives of the Kremlin can be seen as a bit vague, plus the Russian military are stretched here, they have committed two thirds of their in-theater ground forces so far, and those in-theater forces represent about 70% of their standing army combat power.
One thing though, Ukraine would be mad to accept a ceasefire for a short period with positions in place unless there is clear sense of an agreement. That will potentially give Russia the chance to shore up its tail which has proven a problem for them
https://youtu.be/KS8QH2eG6uk?t=86
Make the decision for them as easy as possible.
Also you were the one justifying your views now by calling to history. The prospect of WW2 was seen as pretty disastrous for the world in the 30s. Nuclear weapons weren't even envisaged.
No one (beyond the PJ troll and @HYUFD it seems) is suggesting capitulating to Putin.
If anything the positive points you highlighted in your original post ("Russian police are starting to lose control of antiwar protests back home, Kharkiv and Kyiv still in Ukrainian hands, Russian stockmarket looks to melt down on Monday") seem to indicate that the policies already in place - support for Ukraine, isolate Russia, financial sanctions - are having a positive effect.
The tricky thing now is how to exit this mess so that it doesn't end in a nuclear armageddon.
He appears as disappointed as you by his reception.
What makes a Tory is someone who can take a slightly cynical, cautious approach grounded in experience without the ideological zeal of a socialist or a liberal.
The fact unlike you I do not want to risk going to nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine, a non NATO nation, does not make me a Faragist populist, it makes me sane
When your reputation is trashed it stays trashed. Even Shakespeare knew it.....
"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed."
Some people seem to be itching for this
https://youtu.be/MrHoMSRZOS4
Sure most people hoped that war wouldn’t come, but to say we weren’t rearming during the period is totally false.
2. Yes, I can see that, although it's problematic, as you indicate.
3. I don't know why NATO membership was ever on the table. Was never going to happen and was never necessary.
Not sure I agree a ceasefire necessarily helps Russia. It's isolated internationally and the war is an economic disaster. Russia surely needs a short war?
There isn't a great amount of evidence they are behind this. Which is another rather surprising aspect of the past few days.
You were not alive when my wife and I went to bed every night terrified of a full blown nuclear war between Russia and the US over the Cuban missile crisis and strength won the day
My wife and I never thought history would repeat itself but it is and we have to stand up to Putin with every tool we have got
And i have to say that i find the thought of you accusing other people of being "hot-headed" over military affairs somewhat... er... interesting. After some of the things you have advocated in response to Scottish Independence, or France taking action against fishermen, or Spain doing something with Gibraltar, or...
Putin is a huge problem for the world, but he's a bigger problem for Russia.
Most was spent, as you say, on building industrial capability to build weapons, rather than directly on weapons.
It’s a bit like the pointless ads on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1498065081015414799
https://twitter.com/yvettecoopermp/status/1498051799416066048
There is nothing cowardly about opposing going to war over Ukraine, a non NATO power, which based on Putin's statements will likely go nuclear
Worth a read.
https://twitter.com/max_fisher/status/1497971506852220929?s=21
BREAKING - The Russian central bank has ordered market players to reject foreign clients' bids to sell Russian securities from 0400 GMT on Monday, according to a central bank document seen by Reuters.
https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1498060945070956551
Happy, innocent time.
You occasionally use English in a way that suggests you are not a native speaker.
You ignore questions, and prefer to simply spout propaganda.
And this is "realistic"?
Geordie Values section passed.
Man, like.