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?
Its the type of ceasefire that is the problem. A hold fire and everyone stay in position ceasefire for a day or two of talks is no good because the Russians could do with a pause to sort themselves out a bit. There is the danger of such a tactical ceasefire occurring for that purpose. Been done a hundred times over in warfare.
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
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
He did not. He called the USSR's bluff.
If you want a de-escalation why don't you ask Russia to withdraw rather than Ukraine to surrender.
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
That's the fate of all this incarnation of Johnson's Tory Party
Bloody Hell I come on here after a short while away and I see it's only @HYUFD who is talking any sense.
Realpolitik isn't just a fuzzy easily dismissable concept. It is how the West has operated for the past 30 years and now Russia is having a go. It is how the West should react now.
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
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
Good luck as you answer the call to head to Ukraine and take up arms then - send us a postcard.
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498025819054264328 Yesterday, multiple Russian state media published an extremely shocking, even for Kremlin standards, essay: it presumed "Putin solved the Ukrainian question for ever" - i.e. it presumed Russia took over Ukraine and essentially annexed it into a forever-new--old-union. But… … this essay was apparently written for a scenario where Russian armed forces had taken over Kyiv and subjugated the country...Which didn't actually happen. So, what did state news agency do? They deleted the article, as if the plan had never been published in the first place…
The timetable for the ‘extinguishing’ of the Ukrainian state has not gone to plan.
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.
Knew I should have stolen it from twitter - there you go
@eek You should have gone with this self portrait shithead
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.
OK fair point to an extent. But it is also the case that rearmament on a massive industrial scale was arguably only needed because Germany wasn't confronted earlier. The "appeasement gave time to rearm" argument doesn't work when Germany was arming much quicker. To the extent that come 1938 we were in a far more dire position (in relative terms) than several years earlier.
Neither Germany nor Britain were ready for war in 1939. It’s a fallacy to regard the Wehrmacht as a fully armoured and equipped army. In 1941 the 3 million men who invaded Russia mostly did exactly what napoleons men had done - they walked. German tank production was minuscule compared to other combatants. Germany had no strategic bomber force. After pullin*bout of Sealion, there was literally no plan for defeating Britain. Indeed Hitler rationalised defeating the USSR as taking away a potential ally for Britain (plus all the lovely lebensraum and murder along the way).
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
Good luck as you answer the call to head to Ukraine and take up arms then - send us a postcard.
Oh fuck off. Using @HYUFD ’s logic we shouldn’t be interfering at all, for example providing intelligence and weapons. We should just give Putin what he wants including Estonia and Lithuania and Latvia, amongst others.
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.
What would you recommend NATO doing if an RAF fighter was shot down over Ukraine?
Well the RAF couldn't enforce that on their own. Do not assume, however, that a de facto no fly could not come into effect in the west of Ukraine at some point. NATO have kitted for it, lets put it that way.
Do you think the Ukraine Air force are flying out of Romania/Poland?
Would explain their remarkable resilience.
Actually, now that I think of it, I could come up with something suggesting evidence of this but I'll not go through it.
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.
Malcolm meanwhile your boy took a helluva beating last night. Some greater force made me cash out on Caterall when he was 1/20 in rd12 and thank god I did.
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.
And this is "realistic"?
By their IP address shall you know them...
He seems very interested in me..maybe he's in love
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.
Knew I should have stolen it from twitter - there you go
@eek You should have gone with this self portrait shithead
Interesting, one Aeroflot flight (Miami-Moscow) has just crossed into Canadian airspace.....while another (Punta Cana-Moscow) has turned sharply away. I wonder if the former has permission, or is trying it on to see what happens.....
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.
The Chinese thought the UK's opening gambit for the New Territories would have been along the lines of "how about extending the lease? 99 years? 50?" They were astonished when we said "OK, the New Territories lease is up, and you'd might as well have Hong Kong island too"......
That's not the way Thatcher tells it in her autobiography. She said the Chinese were pretty belligerent and the Falklands victory made them more so. She wanted to keep elements of Royal suzereignty over HK but they weren't having it. They seem to have ruined HK, but it has taken them quite a while to do it completely.
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
Good luck as you answer the call to head to Ukraine and take up arms then - send us a postcard.
Given he couldn’t hack a couple of hours in a chilly office a few weeks back he’s hardly battlefield material. More armchair general.
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.
And this is "realistic"?
By their IP address shall you know them...
He seems very interested in me..maybe he's in love
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
Good luck as you answer the call to head to Ukraine and take up arms then - send us a postcard.
Oh fuck off. Using @HYUFD ’s logic we shouldn’t be interfering at all, for example providing intelligence and weapons. We should just give Putin what he wants including Estonia and Lithuania and Latvia, amongst others.
I am a bit confused about quite why (despite arguing that NATO expansion to Russia's borders was a terrible error, and therefore presumably thinking that they should have suffered the same fate now befalling Ukraine), HYUFD believes nevertheless that if they are attacked we should be duty bound to defend them. Seems a bit stupid really, given the inevitable result.
“ 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.
Knew I should have stolen it from twitter - there you go
@eek You should have gone with this self portrait shithead
Was that something you made earlier?
It is a picture of that shit EEK
It's a shame Gardner's the Bakers has closed down. Back in the day you could have calmed down with a nice cup of tea and a slice of their excellent gateau. Very good it was too.
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
Good luck as you answer the call to head to Ukraine and take up arms then - send us a postcard.
Oh fuck off. Using @HYUFD ’s logic we shouldn’t be interfering at all, for example providing intelligence and weapons. We should just give Putin what he wants including Estonia and Lithuania and Latvia, amongst others.
Take that as a polite decline then. With them in spirit though as you do battle with PB's cowards.
“ 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”
What does the PB brains trust think of this one?
I can tell you what I think if that helps.
They're removing overseas selling pressure and it'd not be wise to sell if you are a Russian holder. Probably the Russian holders will sell everything they have.
(I'm very definitely not well informed as to Russian markets)
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
By accepting the Baltic States into NATO we've helped to make them much safer and prosperous countries.
Had Ukraine chosen to join before 2010 then the same would be true for Ukraine, and there'd be precious little Putin would dare to do about it.
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.
OK fair point to an extent. But it is also the case that rearmament on a massive industrial scale was arguably only needed because Germany wasn't confronted earlier. The "appeasement gave time to rearm" argument doesn't work when Germany was arming much quicker. To the extent that come 1938 we were in a far more dire position (in relative terms) than several years earlier.
Neither Germany nor Britain were ready for war in 1939. It’s a fallacy to regard the Wehrmacht as a fully armoured and equipped army. In 1941 the 3 million men who invaded Russia mostly did exactly what napoleons men had done - they walked. German tank production was minuscule compared to other combatants. Germany had no strategic bomber force. After pullin*bout of Sealion, there was literally no plan for defeating Britain. Indeed Hitler rationalised defeating the USSR as taking away a potential ally for Britain (plus all the lovely lebensraum and murder along the way).
In fact, the UK was pulling ahead of Germany by 1939, in terms of re-armament. The BEF was the first completely motorised army in the world, for example.
The German plan was to be ready for war in late 1942 - this was evident from the naval plans for a start. British and other countries re-armament timetables were based that.
The British plan for 1942 was : 17lbr as standard anti-tank gun for the Army, 3-4,000 Standard Heavy Bombers (bombers between a B-17 and B-29 in size, 300mph, 20mm cannon for defence), all fighters to be 400mph+ and 20mm cannon etc etc. The naval plans were basically - Carriers or Battleships? Why not both?
The German problem was the economy was starting to go sideways - hence Schacht's resignation. Some reckon this was why Hitler started really pushing his luck. And started the war way, way early.
So were Chamberlain's arguments for Munich (line that he didn't really believe the "piece of paper" was worth anything) valid or not?
Or was he overfocussed on British preparedness and not enough on Germany's? Or a bit of both - just that British weakness was in some areas (ability to defend against aerial bombardment), and this would be devastating for the civilian populace (given eg. precedent of Guernica) but this didn't necessarily mean that it would lead to German victory. Although citing Germany's issues in Soviet Union is perhaps red herring? Getting involved in war with the Soviets was a choice not a necessity.
Blimey religion is complicated. Looking up that cathedral leads to learning about the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which 'is a sui iuris Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic church in full communion with the worldwide Catholic Church'
Do some people really think that the difference between Putin deciding to destroy the world or not is really going to come down to the technicalities of NATO membership?
Had Ukraine not tried to join NATO Putin would likely not have invaded it in the first place.
NATO should not have tried to absorb the old nations of the USSR
Quisling, cowardly, bollocks. Thank God we didn’t see the world in those terms in 1949 when NATO was founded, or whenever it has expanded.
No no, you can only do things if opponents (or non allies) agree you can. Apparently.
Boris says there can be no possible excuse for Russia choosing this path of violence - yet some supposed 'loyalists' feel differently and that the NATO pretext is an excuse. Strange.
Comments
If you want a de-escalation why don't you ask Russia to withdraw rather than Ukraine to surrender.
Realpolitik isn't just a fuzzy easily dismissable concept. It is how the West has operated for the past 30 years and now Russia is having a go. It is how the West should react now.
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498025819054264328
Yesterday, multiple Russian state media published an extremely shocking, even for Kremlin standards, essay: it presumed "Putin solved the Ukrainian question for ever" - i.e. it presumed Russia took over Ukraine and essentially annexed it into a forever-new--old-union. But…
… this essay was apparently written for a scenario where Russian armed forces had taken over Kyiv and subjugated the country...Which didn't actually happen. So, what did state news agency do? They deleted the article, as if the plan had never been published in the first place…
The timetable for the ‘extinguishing’ of the Ukrainian state has not gone to plan.
Who is now going to buy Russian securities for the foreseeable future ?
They're removing overseas selling pressure and it'd not be wise to sell if you are a Russian holder. Probably the Russian holders will sell everything they have.
(I'm very definitely not well informed as to Russian markets)
Had Ukraine chosen to join before 2010 then the same would be true for Ukraine, and there'd be precious little Putin would dare to do about it.
The problem was too little NATO, not too much.
The German plan was to be ready for war in late 1942 - this was evident from the naval plans for a start. British and other countries re-armament timetables were based that.
The British plan for 1942 was : 17lbr as standard anti-tank gun for the Army, 3-4,000 Standard Heavy Bombers (bombers between a B-17 and B-29 in size, 300mph, 20mm cannon for defence), all fighters to be 400mph+ and 20mm cannon etc etc. The naval plans were basically - Carriers or Battleships? Why not both?
The German problem was the economy was starting to go sideways - hence Schacht's resignation. Some reckon this was why Hitler started really pushing his luck. And started the war way, way early.
So were Chamberlain's arguments for Munich (line that he didn't really believe the "piece of paper" was worth anything) valid or not?
Or was he overfocussed on British preparedness and not enough on Germany's? Or a bit of both - just that British weakness was in some areas (ability to defend against aerial bombardment), and this would be devastating for the civilian populace (given eg. precedent of Guernica) but this didn't necessarily mean that it would lead to German victory. Although citing Germany's issues in Soviet Union is perhaps red herring? Getting involved in war with the Soviets was a choice not a necessity.