Once again I think HYUFD is suffering something of a pile-on on the Russia issue. Considering what is at stake a purely pragmatic approach should not at all be out of bounds.
Britain and others at all times need to balance continued support for Ukraine with weighing up risk and the calculus of interests.
Once again there is a whinge about a 'pile on', when the principal complaint was for quasi-racist (at best) comments, which were bizarrely out of character consider he supports Sunak. Multiple people disagreeing wqith stupid comments does is not a 'pile on', which is a term designed to give the impression of unfair criticism.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Don’t you get bored repeating the same shit week after week after week?
Just because you crap yourself several times a day, we can’t ignore reality
“Nigel Gould-Davies, a senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia and the International Institute for Strategic Affairs, commented on Twitter: “It’s Russia that is escalating: attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, apparent attacks on western connectivity infrastructure, and mining of Novaya Kakhovka dam. And playing with nuclear fire in Zaporizhzhiya [nuclear power plant] for months.
“So [it’s] hard to see these calls as anything other than Shoigu either doubling down on Putin’s bluffs, or preparing way for Russian nuclear use. Yes, nuclear (ie fission [rather than a dirty bomb]). A dirty bomb would breach nuclear taboo but not achieve significant effects.”
He added: “I worry there is too much motivated reasoning in dismissing possible Russian nuclear use. We don’t want it to happen, and/or we don’t see the point, therefore it won’t. But Russia faces logic of dwindling choices as it loses. Escalation of all kinds more likely.””
It’s not a question of ignoring reality. It’s more a question of ignoring you. You’re boring. How many times have you told us over the last few weeks “Looks like Russia is close to going nuclear”? Okay, we get it. Try mixing it up a bit with a new spin. Even make the prose a little more readable. Anything. It’s hard to make a forthcoming apocalypse dull - but somehow you manage it.
Ok. How about this. Yesterday I crossed the border at Nogales with my mates, we went for a brunch in an old Mexican cantina and drank about seventeen pints of margarita and then we went to a bar and did shots for several hours and then we went to another bar and I bought some weird peppercorns from a Mexican and then we came back to the ranch and we were all so drunk we dived into this swimming pool with our clothes on
And then as we all dried out by the fire my host - who served 15 years in military intelligence in Iraq and Afghanistan (and whose grandpa was US Ambassador to xxx - so he is super well informed) - said to me “I think Putin is going to go nuclear or blow up that dam. Or both”
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Realpolitik is accepting that you have to risk nuclear war to keep yourself safe from nuclear blackmail.
This is not a comfortable realisation for me, but it is a rare foray away from my normal idealism so I guess I should expect it to feel uncomfortable.
I don't know what the root of your view is, but it's not realistic. You can't pretend the nuclear threat doesn't exist by trying to ignore it or give in to it.
He is worried nuclear war might destroy his inheritance
Once again I think HYUFD is suffering something of a pile-on on the Russia issue. Considering what is at stake a purely pragmatic approach should not at all be out of bounds.
Britain and others at all times need to balance continued support for Ukraine with weighing up risk and the calculus of interests.
It's not pragmatic to give in to Putin or strike a deal, though, because he's not a reliable counterparty. It's an entirely unrealistic and not at all pragmatic approach to the situation, which ignores completely how much Putin is trying to reshape the formerly existing rules of geopolitics with his invasion of Ukraine.
So we will soon have a PM who worships a little blue bloke who goes around shagging milkmaids, and another chap who has had a head transplant with an elephant.
And I thought Christians were bonkers.
Why are those any more outlandish than humans who can walk on water, get pregnant without being inseminated, and feed everyone at a Grimsby Town home game with a couple of sardines?
Come, be fair. You forgot the 5 loaves. And you don't get sardines in the Sea [sic] of Galilee. Unless that was part of the miracle, come to think of it.
Nobody wants centimetres. Fools measurement. The lady wants 6 foot and 6 inches not 182.88 and 15.24 cm
Without googling or using a calculator, due to my boyhood fascination with WW1 and WW2 battleships and their guns, I can tell you that:
3 inches = 76 mm 4 inches = 102 mm 5 inches = 127 mm 6 inches = 152 mm 7.5 inches = 190 mm 8 inches = 203 mm 9.2 inches = 234 mm 10 inches = 254 mm 11 inches = 279 mm 12 inches = 305 mm 13.5 inches = 343 mm 14 inches = 356 mm 15 inches = 381 mm 16 inches = 406 mm 18 inches = 457 mm
Once again I think HYUFD is suffering something of a pile-on on the Russia issue. Considering what is at stake a purely pragmatic approach should not at all be out of bounds.
Britain and others at all times need to balance continued support for Ukraine with weighing up risk and the calculus of interests.
It's not pragmatic to give in to Putin or strike a deal, though, because he's not a reliable counterparty. It's an entirely unrealistic and not at all pragmatic approach to the situation, which ignores completely how much Putin is trying to reshape the formerly existing rules of geopolitics with his invasion of Ukraine.
Precisely if anyone believe putins lies about this far and no further then maybe he would have a point. Putin has shown time and time again that if you give him an inch he will take a mile
Once again I think HYUFD is suffering something of a pile-on on the Russia issue. Considering what is at stake a purely pragmatic approach should not at all be out of bounds.
Britain and others at all times need to balance continued support for Ukraine with weighing up risk and the calculus of interests.
Once again there is a whinge about a 'pile on', when the principal complaint was for quasi-racist (at best) comments, which were bizarrely out of character consider he supports Sunak. Multiple people disagreeing wqith stupid comments does is not a 'pile on', which is a term designed to give the impression of unfair criticism.
I personally wouldn't agree here. I think PB as a whole does tend collectively to the ultra-hawkish on Russia, more so than on economic and other issues, and would share the call for a more circumspect approach. At all times you have to weigh up what your vital interests are, and the calculus of risk and benefit.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
The common thing between people outside the Overton window in British politics is a lack of consideration of incentives. We see this with people who don't understand that giving refuge to people who cross the channel is likely to encourage more people trafficking, and those who can't comprehend that if we concede to Putin he will just keep on invading countries and using nerve agents in western cities.
On the latter, I think there is actually a higher chance of a miscommunication that leads to nuclear war if we start to be a bit loose around borders - for example, those islands in the Baltic. The message has to be clear now that that kind of behaviour will not be tolerated, lest Putin starts to sell himself the idea that NATO doesn't mind.
Once again I think HYUFD is suffering something of a pile-on on the Russia issue. Considering what is at stake a purely pragmatic approach should not at all be out of bounds.
Britain and others at all times need to balance continued support for Ukraine with weighing up risk and the calculus of interests.
Once again there is a whinge about a 'pile on', when the principal complaint was for quasi-racist (at best) comments, which were bizarrely out of character consider he supports Sunak. Multiple people disagreeing wqith stupid comments does is not a 'pile on', which is a term designed to give the impression of unfair criticism.
I personally wouldn't agree here. I think PB tends collectively towards the ultra-hawkish on Russia, more so than on economic issues, and would share the call for a more circumspect approach. At all times you have to weigh up what your vital interests are, and the calculus of risk and benefit.
Say you are right and this is a genuine question. We give in so ww3 doesnt happen. Then he says he wants estonia or he nukes....then its poland or he nukes....where do you draw the line and say no more?. Thing is we give into him now he wont believe it when the line is drawn and people are serious no more. That is when we get ww3. Not giving into him now however gives a good chance he backs down
The Daily Mail appears to think its readership have no memory. Maybe they don't.
The one advantage of senility is that you can read The Daily Mail in the morning and by the afternoon you can read it all over again without any sense of repetition or incredulity.
I know that is in jest but our next door neighbour who is in her late eighties and living alone fits that description exactly
We have known her and her family for nearly 60 years, and it is so distressing to witness her failing mind and more so for her family who live a distance away
Dementia is one of the most upsetting health issues imaginable as your love one often deteriorates to not knowing who their dearest and nearest are
My uncle had a dementia test at the doc’s this morning, and - I kid you not - the first question was ‘who is the current prime minister?’…
Once again I think HYUFD is suffering something of a pile-on on the Russia issue. Considering what is at stake a purely pragmatic approach should not at all be out of bounds.
Britain and others at all times need to balance continued support for Ukraine with weighing up risk and the calculus of interests.
Once again there is a whinge about a 'pile on', when the principal complaint was for quasi-racist (at best) comments, which were bizarrely out of character consider he supports Sunak. Multiple people disagreeing wqith stupid comments does is not a 'pile on', which is a term designed to give the impression of unfair criticism.
I personally wouldn't agree here. I think PB tends collectively towards the ultra-hawkish on Russia, more so than on economic issues, and would share the call for a more circumspect approach. At all times you have to weigh up what your vital interests are, and the calculus of risk and benefit.
Say you are right and this is a genuine question. We give in so ww3 doesnt happen. Then he says he wants estonia or he nukes....then its poland or he nukes....where do you draw the line and say no more?. Thing is we give into him now he wont believe it when the line is drawn and people are serious no more. That is when we get ww3. Not giving into him now however gives a good chance he backs down
I would say Putin knows there's a very firm line with NATO and Estonia, I think. The calculus of risk to benefit for him there makes it prohibitive.
Once again I think HYUFD is suffering something of a pile-on on the Russia issue. Considering what is at stake a purely pragmatic approach should not at all be out of bounds.
Britain and others at all times need to balance continued support for Ukraine with weighing up risk and the calculus of interests.
Once again there is a whinge about a 'pile on', when the principal complaint was for quasi-racist (at best) comments, which were bizarrely out of character consider he supports Sunak. Multiple people disagreeing wqith stupid comments does is not a 'pile on', which is a term designed to give the impression of unfair criticism.
I personally wouldn't agree here. I think PB tends collectively towards the ultra-hawkish on Russia, more so than on economic issues, and would share the call for a more circumspect approach. At all times you have to weigh up what your vital interests are, and the calculus of risk and benefit.
Say you are right and this is a genuine question. We give in so ww3 doesnt happen. Then he says he wants estonia or he nukes....then its poland or he nukes....where do you draw the line and say no more?. Thing is we give into him now he wont believe it when the line is drawn and people are serious no more. That is when we get ww3. Not giving into him now however gives a good chance he backs down
I would say Putin knows there's a very firm line with NATO and Estonia, I think. The calculus of risk to benefit for him there makes it prohibotive.
Why do you care about estonia and not ukraine....we will have people like you arguing the fucking same thing....its a foreign country dont provoke ww3....dont give me bollocks about nato. We gave an undertaking to ukraine that if they got rid of nukes we would protect them...so did the us and indeed russia. Why is that undertaking fine for estonia and not ukraine?
Once again I think HYUFD is suffering something of a pile-on on the Russia issue. Considering what is at stake a purely pragmatic approach should not at all be out of bounds.
Britain and others at all times need to balance continued support for Ukraine with weighing up risk and the calculus of interests.
Of course, but PB is collectively completely loony on this issue, as everyone competes to insist on the necessity of us toiling, spending, shivering, or even (and this is sadly no exaggeration) ending human life on the planet, so we can stick it to Putin.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
So we will soon have a PM who worships a little blue bloke who goes around shagging milkmaids, and another chap who has had a head transplant with an elephant.
And I thought Christians were bonkers.
Why are those any more outlandish than humans who can walk on water, get pregnant without being inseminated, and feed everyone at a Grimsby Town home game with a couple of sardines?
Congratulations to Bond Street station [Elizabeth Line] after its first day of operation. The escalators are only 3 steps shorter than the ones at Angel tube station.
So we will soon have a PM who worships a little blue bloke who goes around shagging milkmaids, and another chap who has had a head transplant with an elephant.
And I thought Christians were bonkers.
Why are those any more outlandish than humans who can walk on water, get pregnant without being inseminated, and feed everyone at a Grimsby Town home game with a couple of sardines?
It's all nonsense.
'Nonsense' about 3/4 of the global population who are still religious believe in
Once again I think HYUFD is suffering something of a pile-on on the Russia issue. Considering what is at stake a purely pragmatic approach should not at all be out of bounds.
Britain and others at all times need to balance continued support for Ukraine with weighing up risk and the calculus of interests.
Once again there is a whinge about a 'pile on', when the principal complaint was for quasi-racist (at best) comments, which were bizarrely out of character consider he supports Sunak. Multiple people disagreeing wqith stupid comments does is not a 'pile on', which is a term designed to give the impression of unfair criticism.
I personally wouldn't agree here. I think PB tends collectively towards the ultra-hawkish on Russia, more so than on economic issues, and would share the call for a more circumspect approach. At all times you have to weigh up what your vital interests are, and the calculus of risk and benefit.
Say you are right and this is a genuine question. We give in so ww3 doesnt happen. Then he says he wants estonia or he nukes....then its poland or he nukes....where do you draw the line and say no more?. Thing is we give into him now he wont believe it when the line is drawn and people are serious no more. That is when we get ww3. Not giving into him now however gives a good chance he backs down
The aim should be to find a sweet diplomatic spot where Putin survives, but badly mauled, and his army fucked, yet with some small victory he can sell to his people (I have suggested international recognition of Crimea as Russian)
The Russians want a way out of this horrible mess as much as us
Pushing for outright defeat of Russia sounds great but the reality is he has nukes and he will probably use them if he feels that he is existentially threatened or that Russia will be plunged into civil war by the humiliation
And if he uses nukes we likely all die and humanity is extinguished. At that point we are relying on the Russian chain of command resisting Putin’s edicts. That is a ridiculous risk
Once again I think HYUFD is suffering something of a pile-on on the Russia issue. Considering what is at stake a purely pragmatic approach should not at all be out of bounds.
Britain and others at all times need to balance continued support for Ukraine with weighing up risk and the calculus of interests.
Once again there is a whinge about a 'pile on', when the principal complaint was for quasi-racist (at best) comments, which were bizarrely out of character consider he supports Sunak. Multiple people disagreeing wqith stupid comments does is not a 'pile on', which is a term designed to give the impression of unfair criticism.
I personally wouldn't agree here. I think PB tends collectively towards the ultra-hawkish on Russia, more so than on economic issues, and would share the call for a more circumspect approach. At all times you have to weigh up what your vital interests are, and the calculus of risk and benefit.
Say you are right and this is a genuine question. We give in so ww3 doesnt happen. Then he says he wants estonia or he nukes....then its poland or he nukes....where do you draw the line and say no more?. Thing is we give into him now he wont believe it when the line is drawn and people are serious no more. That is when we get ww3. Not giving into him now however gives a good chance he backs down
I would say Putin knows there's a very firm line with NATO and Estonia, I think. The calculus of risk to benefit for him there makes it prohibotive.
Why do you care about estonia and not ukraine....we will have people like you arguing the fucking same thing....its a foreign country dont provoke ww3....dont give me bollocks about nato. We gave an undertaking to ukraine that if they got rid of nukes we would protect them...so did the us and indeed russia. Why is that undertaking fine for estonia and not ukraine?
Because UKraine isn't in NATO.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to support it, but it does mean there's as an open argument as to whether to allow maximum risk to ourselves for a total victory in the war by Ukraine.
Streeting not exactly shining on Newsnight. Refusing to accept a general election risks market instability again.
Nor answering why there wasn't a general election following Blair's transfer to Brown.
Labour's "talent" is very thinly spread - and that will be exposed over the next two years.
He s my local MP, so I do have a soft spot for him.
I know and I generally thought he was quite smart. Not on show tonight though, when faced with some tricky questions to answer. Obvious questions that he should have been briefed to answer.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Not disputed territories until 2014. No problem when Ukraine became a member of the UN and Russia signed the Budapest memorandum.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
Once again I think HYUFD is suffering something of a pile-on on the Russia issue. Considering what is at stake a purely pragmatic approach should not at all be out of bounds.
Britain and others at all times need to balance continued support for Ukraine with weighing up risk and the calculus of interests.
Once again there is a whinge about a 'pile on', when the principal complaint was for quasi-racist (at best) comments, which were bizarrely out of character consider he supports Sunak. Multiple people disagreeing wqith stupid comments does is not a 'pile on', which is a term designed to give the impression of unfair criticism.
I personally wouldn't agree here. I think PB tends collectively towards the ultra-hawkish on Russia, more so than on economic issues, and would share the call for a more circumspect approach. At all times you have to weigh up what your vital interests are, and the calculus of risk and benefit.
Say you are right and this is a genuine question. We give in so ww3 doesnt happen. Then he says he wants estonia or he nukes....then its poland or he nukes....where do you draw the line and say no more?. Thing is we give into him now he wont believe it when the line is drawn and people are serious no more. That is when we get ww3. Not giving into him now however gives a good chance he backs down
I would say Putin knows there's a very firm line with NATO and Estonia, I think. The calculus of risk to benefit for him there makes it prohibotive.
Why do you care about estonia and not ukraine....we will have people like you arguing the fucking same thing....its a foreign country dont provoke ww3....dont give me bollocks about nato. We gave an undertaking to ukraine that if they got rid of nukes we would protect them...so did the us and indeed russia. Why is that undertaking fine for estonia and not ukraine?
Because UKraine isn't in NATO.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to support it, but it does mean there's as an open argument as to whether to allow maximum risk to ourselves for a total victory in the war by Ukraine.
I’m not sure I understand the statement that we should continue to support Ukraine but not support it enough so that it emerges victorious. Why support it then? We have to be prepared for the Ukrainians to win the war. Great powers, nuclear powers have withdrawn from wars they are losing without cleansing the world with nuclear fire because they’re a bit miffed or embarrassed. Do we not have to make the same calculation?
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
They're only disputed in the sense that Putin is a thug who has stolen them.
Once again I think HYUFD is suffering something of a pile-on on the Russia issue. Considering what is at stake a purely pragmatic approach should not at all be out of bounds.
Britain and others at all times need to balance continued support for Ukraine with weighing up risk and the calculus of interests.
Once again there is a whinge about a 'pile on', when the principal complaint was for quasi-racist (at best) comments, which were bizarrely out of character consider he supports Sunak. Multiple people disagreeing wqith stupid comments does is not a 'pile on', which is a term designed to give the impression of unfair criticism.
I personally wouldn't agree here. I think PB tends collectively towards the ultra-hawkish on Russia, more so than on economic issues, and would share the call for a more circumspect approach. At all times you have to weigh up what your vital interests are, and the calculus of risk and benefit.
Say you are right and this is a genuine question. We give in so ww3 doesnt happen. Then he says he wants estonia or he nukes....then its poland or he nukes....where do you draw the line and say no more?. Thing is we give into him now he wont believe it when the line is drawn and people are serious no more. That is when we get ww3. Not giving into him now however gives a good chance he backs down
I would say Putin knows there's a very firm line with NATO and Estonia, I think. The calculus of risk to benefit for him there makes it prohibotive.
Why do you care about estonia and not ukraine....we will have people like you arguing the fucking same thing....its a foreign country dont provoke ww3....dont give me bollocks about nato. We gave an undertaking to ukraine that if they got rid of nukes we would protect them...so did the us and indeed russia. Why is that undertaking fine for estonia and not ukraine?
Because UKraine isn't in NATO.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to support it, but it does mean there's as an open argument as to whether to allow maximum risk to ourselves for a total victory in the war by Ukraine.
We made a promise to nato countries, to protect them. We made a promise to the ukraine to protect them from nuclear states if they decomissioned. Explain to me why one promise counts and one doesnt
So we will soon have a PM who worships a little blue bloke who goes around shagging milkmaids, and another chap who has had a head transplant with an elephant.
And I thought Christians were bonkers.
Why are those any more outlandish than humans who can walk on water, get pregnant without being inseminated, and feed everyone at a Grimsby Town home game with a couple of sardines?
It's all nonsense.
'Nonsense' about 3/4 of the global population who are still religious believe in
It's not my fault that so many people are stupid, gullible, indoctrinated or just pretending.
So we will soon have a PM who worships a little blue bloke who goes around shagging milkmaids, and another chap who has had a head transplant with an elephant.
And I thought Christians were bonkers.
Why are those any more outlandish than humans who can walk on water, get pregnant without being inseminated, and feed everyone at a Grimsby Town home game with a couple of sardines?
Town supporters bring their own "Feeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh..........."
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
Yes I am willing to take a risk of nuclear war because the risk is less now than if we back down and Putin thinks waving his missiles gets results. Your way he gets used to waving missiles and thinks it will get him what he wants. That way leads to nuclear war definitely. Clue here, I am at no less risk of dying in a nuclear war than you. Your way definitely leads to one...my way of standing up now stands a better chance of him backing down and no one trying again. Is it a risk yes....a calculated one though
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
Exactly. It is a border dispute that should have been sorted out a decade ago by plebiscites, except Ukraine did not want to hold them (because they would have lost land).
It is only on pb.com that it is a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and Evil.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
If you stop advocating giving in to people for fear they may do something I will stop labelling you a coward simple as that
Streeting not exactly shining on Newsnight. Refusing to accept a general election risks market instability again.
Nor answering why there wasn't a general election following Blair's transfer to Brown.
Labour's "talent" is very thinly spread - and that will be exposed over the next two years.
He s my local MP, so I do have a soft spot for him.
I know and I generally thought he was quite smart. Not on show tonight though, when faced with some tricky questions to answer. Obvious questions that he should have been briefed to answer.
Not watched it, but if he can't answer why Blair/Brown is different then I'm amazed.
Streeting not exactly shining on Newsnight. Refusing to accept a general election risks market instability again.
Nor answering why there wasn't a general election following Blair's transfer to Brown.
Labour's "talent" is very thinly spread - and that will be exposed over the next two years.
He s my local MP, so I do have a soft spot for him.
I know and I generally thought he was quite smart. Not on show tonight though, when faced with some tricky questions to answer. Obvious questions that he should have been briefed to answer.
He’s one of my “top rated” Labour performers too. Perhaps their easy ride vs the clown show is over?
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
I would have opposed WW1, which was the genisis of both the political circumstances and the individual circumstances that lead to Hitler's rise to power. Saving countless millions of lives in the 20th century.
Once again I think HYUFD is suffering something of a pile-on on the Russia issue. Considering what is at stake a purely pragmatic approach should not at all be out of bounds.
Britain and others at all times need to balance continued support for Ukraine with weighing up risk and the calculus of interests.
Once again there is a whinge about a 'pile on', when the principal complaint was for quasi-racist (at best) comments, which were bizarrely out of character consider he supports Sunak. Multiple people disagreeing wqith stupid comments does is not a 'pile on', which is a term designed to give the impression of unfair criticism.
I personally wouldn't agree here. I think PB tends collectively towards the ultra-hawkish on Russia, more so than on economic issues, and would share the call for a more circumspect approach. At all times you have to weigh up what your vital interests are, and the calculus of risk and benefit.
Say you are right and this is a genuine question. We give in so ww3 doesnt happen. Then he says he wants estonia or he nukes....then its poland or he nukes....where do you draw the line and say no more?. Thing is we give into him now he wont believe it when the line is drawn and people are serious no more. That is when we get ww3. Not giving into him now however gives a good chance he backs down
I would say Putin knows there's a very firm line with NATO and Estonia, I think. The calculus of risk to benefit for him there makes it prohibotive.
Why do you care about estonia and not ukraine....we will have people like you arguing the fucking same thing....its a foreign country dont provoke ww3....dont give me bollocks about nato. We gave an undertaking to ukraine that if they got rid of nukes we would protect them...so did the us and indeed russia. Why is that undertaking fine for estonia and not ukraine?
Because UKraine isn't in NATO.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to support it, but it does mean there's as an open argument as to whether to allow maximum risk to ourselves for a total victory in the war by Ukraine.
We made a promise to nato countries, to protect them. We made a promise to the ukraine to protect them from nuclear states if they decomissioned. Explain to me why one promise counts and one doesnt
Because we've made NATO a pillar of our collective security. An attack on one is an attack on all, as Putin knows about Estonia and Poland.
On NumberTwelve's point about how can you support the Ukrainians but not support a total victory, I would actually agree a lot with Leon on this. Keep up armament and diplomatic support , but do not continually feed the expectation of the inevitability of total victory in all areas , on the Ukrainian side.
Once again I think HYUFD is suffering something of a pile-on on the Russia issue. Considering what is at stake a purely pragmatic approach should not at all be out of bounds.
Britain and others at all times need to balance continued support for Ukraine with weighing up risk and the calculus of interests.
It's not pragmatic to give in to Putin or strike a deal, though, because he's not a reliable counterparty. It's an entirely unrealistic and not at all pragmatic approach to the situation, which ignores completely how much Putin is trying to reshape the formerly existing rules of geopolitics with his invasion of Ukraine.
I think it understandably approaches it from the wrong logical angle, namely thinking about it from what we obviously don't want happening rather than what Putin would be ready, willing and able to do. If he's prepared to use nuclear weapons to start WW3 then, terrifying as it is, giving him a small slice of what he wants - two devastated regions of Ukraine and some Potemkin agreements Russia won't and doesn't expect Ukraine to abide by isn't going to stop him. At best, it might delay until we get the next round of blackmail, threats and demands. Scary as it might be, the terrorist who really is bent on destruction is going to do it even if you meet some transitional demands. And it might even provide encouragement to use the same threats again sooner, knowing that ultimately defence guarantees will disappear if you wave a big radioactive stick around. So one has to assume the bluff and call it - albeit as delicately and in as non-escalatory way as possible In short, if Putin is actually willing to start WW3 then we are screwed whatever as he will do it without almost total capitulation, so we have to (while making every contingency and deterrent in case) assume it's a bluff we have to call in the more likely event it is and that ends the worst of the cycle of Russian aggression by exposing it as such, as in Cuba.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
Exactly. It is a border dispute that should have been sorted out a decade ago by plebiscites, except Ukraine did not want to hold them (because they would have lost land).
It is only on pb.com that it is a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and Evil.
Apart from in the only free and fair plebiscite held in crimea before they had russian guns pointing at them they voted for ukraine to be an independent country with a majority of 57%. Your point is void
Congratulations to Bond Street station [Elizabeth Line] after its first day of operation. The escalators are only 3 steps shorter than the ones at Angel tube station.
When are through trains going to start? That will be a game changer
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
Exactly. It is a border dispute that should have been sorted out a decade ago by plebiscites, except Ukraine did not want to hold them (because they would have lost land).
It is only on pb.com that it is a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and Evil.
Bollocks. It was settled by plebiscite in the early 1990s. Then Putin came along and wanted to steal bits of a neighbouring country.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
So Russia waves its nukes, and the UK and US retreat. Without Russia using them. Just by having them, they win.
Ukraine had them too, but gave them up - on assurances the UK and US and China and Russia would ensure they were never exposed to these very threats. They have been fucked over.
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
If our army by that point is completely denuded of all usable weapons having given them all to Ukraine, we might have to.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
Ah so what you mean is the ukraine should submit so you can be safe. Why the hell should they when you wouldnt do the same
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
I would have opposed WW1, which was the genisis of both the political circumstances and the individual circumstances that lead to Hitler's rise to power. Saving countless millions of lives in the 20th century.
We should have come to a compromise with the Kaiser and avoided WW1 at all costs. That was the big mistake. If WW1 had been avoided it's possible Hitler would never have come to power (no WW2) and the Russian Revolution may not have happened either (no Lenin/Stalin and no cold war)
WW1 was the perhaps the biggest calamity in human political history?
That said Putin can't be allowed to go around invading any country he likes just because he has nukes. At some point he's going to have to be confronted directly IMO and he'll either step back from the brink or draw us into WW3.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
So only countries with nukes count?
Congratulations! You've just caused a massive round of nuclear proliferation!
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
So Russia waves its nukes, and the UK and US retreat. Without Russia using them. Just by having them, they win.
Ukraine had them too, but gave them up - on assurances the UK and US and China and Russia would ensure they were never exposed to these very threats. They have been fucked over.
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
If there's an appreciable risk of nuclear annihilation, and that can be avoided, YES. It doesn't have to be fair - your parents should have taught you that sometimes life isn't.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
So only countries with nukes count?
Congratulations! You've just caused a massive round of nuclear proliferation!
For what its worth I think Putin will start world war 3 regardless. From all accounts the man has a terminal illness and I think he is deranged enough to want to take everyone with him
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
Exactly. It is a border dispute that should have been sorted out a decade ago by plebiscites, except Ukraine did not want to hold them (because they would have lost land).
It is only on pb.com that it is a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and Evil.
Bollocks. It was settled by plebiscite in the early 1990s. Then Putin came along and wanted to steal bits of a neighbouring country.
Often in war there isn't a clear good and evil.
Here there most certainly is.
The referendum was in 1991, just after the coup against Gorbachev. Things were rather different.
The Crimean Parliament declared Crimea independent of Ukraine in 1992.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
Ah so what you mean is the ukraine should submit so you can be safe. Why the hell should they when you wouldnt do the same
If it wasn't for supplies of advanced western weapons and supplies to Ukraine, Putin may well have captured Kyiv by Spring.
We have done plenty for Ukraine, we are just not willing to go to WW3 and potentially nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine, only for NATO states
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
So only countries with nukes count?
Congratulations! You've just caused a massive round of nuclear proliferation!
That’s baked in anyway. There will now be widespread nuclear proliferation whatever happens
‘South Korea eyes nuclear option amid North Korean threats
Julian Ryall Tokyo 10/19/2022October 19, 2022
A majority of people in South Korea would support obtaining nuclear weapons to deter Pyongyang”
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
Ah so what you mean is the ukraine should submit so you can be safe. Why the hell should they when you wouldnt do the same
If it wasn't for supplies of advanced western weapons and supplies to Ukraine, Putin may well have captured Kyiv by Spring.
We have done plenty for Ukraine, we are just not willing to go to WW3 and potentially nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine, only for NATO states
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
I would have opposed WW1, which was the genisis of both the political circumstances and the individual circumstances that lead to Hitler's rise to power. Saving countless millions of lives in the 20th century.
We should have come to a compromise with the Kaiser and avoided WW1 at all costs. That was the big mistake. If WW1 had been avoided it's possible Hitler would never have come to power (no WW2) and the Russian Revolution may not have happened either (no Lenin/Stalin and no cold war)
WW1 was the perhaps the biggest calamity in human political history?
That said Putin can't be allowed to go around invading any country he likes just because he has nukes. At some point he's going to have to be confronted directly IMO and he'll either step back from the brink or draw us into WW3.
Of course, the great equalizer (death) may come knocking on Putin's door before too long and get us all off the hook... We can only hope! 🙏
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
So only countries with nukes count?
Congratulations! You've just caused a massive round of nuclear proliferation!
For what its worth I think Putin will start world war 3 regardless. From all accounts the man has a terminal illness and I think he is deranged enough to want to take everyone with him
Bob Mugabe was meant to be dying of syphilis 20 years ago - the man is still on his perch isn't he?
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
So only countries with nukes count?
Congratulations! You've just caused a massive round of nuclear proliferation!
For what its worth I think Putin will start world war 3 regardless. From all accounts the man has a terminal illness and I think he is deranged enough to want to take everyone with him
Bob Mugabe was meant to be dying of syphilis 20 years ago - the man is still on his perch isn't he?
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
Ah so what you mean is the ukraine should submit so you can be safe. Why the hell should they when you wouldnt do the same
If it wasn't for supplies of advanced western weapons and supplies to Ukraine, Putin may well have captured Kyiv by Spring.
We have done plenty for Ukraine, we are just not willing to go to WW3 and potentially nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine, only for NATO states
Well as long as they nuke epping its a win
They would only do so having first nuked London, Manchester, Glasgow etc
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
So only countries with nukes count?
Congratulations! You've just caused a massive round of nuclear proliferation!
For what its worth I think Putin will start world war 3 regardless. From all accounts the man has a terminal illness and I think he is deranged enough to want to take everyone with him
Bob Mugabe was meant to be dying of syphilis 20 years ago - the man is still on his perch isn't he?
What has that to do with anything....someone was rumoured to be dying....from what I heard Putin has been confirmed with a liver disorder and has maybe 5 years. There is a difference between rumours and observation
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
I would have opposed WW1, which was the genisis of both the political circumstances and the individual circumstances that lead to Hitler's rise to power. Saving countless millions of lives in the 20th century.
We should have come to a compromise with the Kaiser and avoided WW1 at all costs. That was the big mistake. If WW1 had been avoided it's possible Hitler would never have come to power (no WW2) and the Russian Revolution may not have happened either (no Lenin/Stalin and no cold war)
WW1 was the perhaps the biggest calamity in human political history?
That said Putin can't be allowed to go around invading any country he likes just because he has nukes. At some point he's going to have to be confronted directly IMO and he'll either step back from the brink or draw us into WW3.
It also lead to American leadership of the world economy, and the literature will tell you that that has been disastrous. As a small trading nation Britain had a vested interest in keeping the world economy on an even keel. The US with a large domestic market has had no such interest.
Congratulations to Bond Street station [Elizabeth Line] after its first day of operation. The escalators are only 3 steps shorter than the ones at Angel tube station.
Will check it out tomorrow. Once I do Cookham and Furze Platt on the Marlow branch, will have visited all stations currently inside the London Contactless (as in bank card) travel area.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
So Russia waves its nukes, and the UK and US retreat. Without Russia using them. Just by having them, they win.
Ukraine had them too, but gave them up - on assurances the UK and US and China and Russia would ensure they were never exposed to these very threats. They have been fucked over.
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
If there's an appreciable risk of nuclear annihilation, and that can be avoided, YES. It doesn't have to be fair - your parents should have taught you that sometimes life isn't.
If a bully makes a threat, giving in to him just encourages him to repeat it.
You may not want to accept it, but the person making nuclear threats is the bad guy.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
Ah so what you mean is the ukraine should submit so you can be safe. Why the hell should they when you wouldnt do the same
If it wasn't for supplies of advanced western weapons and supplies to Ukraine, Putin may well have captured Kyiv by Spring.
We have done plenty for Ukraine, we are just not willing to go to WW3 and potentially nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine, only for NATO states
Well as long as they nuke epping its a win
They would only do so having first nuked London, Manchester, Glasgow etc
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
So Russia waves its nukes, and the UK and US retreat. Without Russia using them. Just by having them, they win.
Ukraine had them too, but gave them up - on assurances the UK and US and China and Russia would ensure they were never exposed to these very threats. They have been fucked over.
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
If there's an appreciable risk of nuclear annihilation, and that can be avoided, YES. It doesn't have to be fair - your parents should have taught you that sometimes life isn't.
If a bully makes a threat, giving in to him just encourages him to repeat it.
You may not want to accept it, but the person making nuclear threats is the bad guy.
Jesus F Christ, we KNOW he is the bad guy. Unfortunately he has nuclear weapons
Congratulations to Bond Street station [Elizabeth Line] after its first day of operation. The escalators are only 3 steps shorter than the ones at Angel tube station.
When are through trains going to start? That will be a game changer
November 6 - but only Shenfield to Paddington, and Abbey Wood to Reading/Heathrow.
The full timetable comes out next year: Shenfield/Abbey Wood to Reading/Heathrow.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
Exactly. It is a border dispute that should have been sorted out a decade ago by plebiscites, except Ukraine did not want to hold them (because they would have lost land).
It is only on pb.com that it is a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and Evil.
Bollocks. It was settled by plebiscite in the early 1990s. Then Putin came along and wanted to steal bits of a neighbouring country.
Often in war there isn't a clear good and evil.
Here there most certainly is.
The referendum was in 1991, just after the coup against Gorbachev. Things were rather different.
The Crimean Parliament declared Crimea independent of Ukraine in 1992.
You can argue that Crimea *might* have voted to join Russia at some point if they'd had a fair referendum but nothing like that is remotely true of the other regions that Putin started the current war over.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
So Russia waves its nukes, and the UK and US retreat. Without Russia using them. Just by having them, they win.
Ukraine had them too, but gave them up - on assurances the UK and US and China and Russia would ensure they were never exposed to these very threats. They have been fucked over.
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
If there's an appreciable risk of nuclear annihilation, and that can be avoided, YES. It doesn't have to be fair - your parents should have taught you that sometimes life isn't.
If a bully makes a threat, giving in to him just encourages him to repeat it.
You may not want to accept it, but the person making nuclear threats is the bad guy.
Jesus F Christ, we KNOW he is the bad guy. Unfortunately he has nuclear weapons
If you know he's the bad guy, why do you propose to encourage him?
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
So Russia waves its nukes, and the UK and US retreat. Without Russia using them. Just by having them, they win.
Ukraine had them too, but gave them up - on assurances the UK and US and China and Russia would ensure they were never exposed to these very threats. They have been fucked over.
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
If there's an appreciable risk of nuclear annihilation, and that can be avoided, YES. It doesn't have to be fair - your parents should have taught you that sometimes life isn't.
If a bully makes a threat, giving in to him just encourages him to repeat it.
You may not want to accept it, but the person making nuclear threats is the bad guy.
Jesus F Christ, we KNOW he is the bad guy. Unfortunately he has nuclear weapons
And so do we (as in NATO), and India, Pakistan, China, etc.
@narendramodi Warmest congratulations @RishiSunak ! As you become UK PM, I look forward to working closely together on global issues, and implementing Roadmap 2030. Special Diwali wishes to the 'living bridge' of UK Indians, as we transform our historic ties into a modern partnership.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
Ah so what you mean is the ukraine should submit so you can be safe. Why the hell should they when you wouldnt do the same
If it wasn't for supplies of advanced western weapons and supplies to Ukraine, Putin may well have captured Kyiv by Spring.
We have done plenty for Ukraine, we are just not willing to go to WW3 and potentially nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine, only for NATO states
Well as long as they nuke epping its a win
They would only do so having first nuked London, Manchester, Glasgow etc
With the exception of London, Putin wouldn't waste nukes targetting urban population centres, thats not how a nuclear war would be fought
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
Exactly. It is a border dispute that should have been sorted out a decade ago by plebiscites, except Ukraine did not want to hold them (because they would have lost land).
It is only on pb.com that it is a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and Evil.
Bollocks. It was settled by plebiscite in the early 1990s. Then Putin came along and wanted to steal bits of a neighbouring country.
Often in war there isn't a clear good and evil.
Here there most certainly is.
The referendum was in 1991, just after the coup against Gorbachev. Things were rather different.
The Crimean Parliament declared Crimea independent of Ukraine in 1992.
You can argue that Crimea *might* have voted to join Russia at some point if they'd had a fair referendum but nothing like that is remotely true of the other regions that Putin started the current war over.
I have absolutely no idea what the result of a referendum in Donetsk might have been.
BTW, how do you know?
Of course, Ukraine could have just held a plebiscite in Donetsk 10 years ago or 5 years ago.
And -- if as you seem to believe -- it would have shown overwhelming support for staying in Ukraine, then that would have been a very powerful argument.
In which case, it is a bit surprising Ukraine never did, no?
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
Exactly. It is a border dispute that should have been sorted out a decade ago by plebiscites, except Ukraine did not want to hold them (because they would have lost land).
It is only on pb.com that it is a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and Evil.
Bollocks. It was settled by plebiscite in the early 1990s. Then Putin came along and wanted to steal bits of a neighbouring country.
Often in war there isn't a clear good and evil.
Here there most certainly is.
The referendum was in 1991, just after the coup against Gorbachev. Things were rather different.
The Crimean Parliament declared Crimea independent of Ukraine in 1992.
You can argue that Crimea *might* have voted to join Russia at some point if they'd had a fair referendum but nothing like that is remotely true of the other regions that Putin started the current war over.
I have absolutely no idea what the result of a referendum in Donetsk might have been.
BTW, how do you know?
Of course, Ukraine could have just held a plebiscite in Donetsk 10 years ago or 5 years ago.
And -- if as you seem to believe -- it would have shown overwhelming support for staying in Ukraine, then that would have been a very powerful argument.
In which case, it is a bit surprising Ukraine never did, no?
Gosh should wales hold a plebiscite because ireland claims it would rather be irish. There was no push in crimea or donetsk for a referendum
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
And in 1914, you would probably have been at the forefront of advocating a jolly good war to blow the cobwebs away and give the Kaiser a damn good thrashing. Fast forward 4 years and we've lost the flower of a generation in the trenches, lost world leadership and stewardship of the world economy, and are busy placing ourselves in line for Round 2.
You and HYUFD would still have been appeasing Hitler even after he invaded Poland. And France.
Hitler did not have nukes capable of destroying the entire world and all life upon it. Putin does
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
So when Putin says I want the uk or I launch ww3 you want us to give in?
At that point yes: the UK threatens use of nukes, and if Putin attacks with nukes, we nuke back
For Ukraine? No
So only countries with nukes count?
Congratulations! You've just caused a massive round of nuclear proliferation!
That’s baked in anyway. There will now be widespread nuclear proliferation whatever happens
‘South Korea eyes nuclear option amid North Korean threats
Julian Ryall Tokyo 10/19/2022October 19, 2022
A majority of people in South Korea would support obtaining nuclear weapons to deter Pyongyang”
South Korea and Japan will go nuclear. Maybe even Taiwan
And there will be others
There were US nukes on Taiwan soil until 1974. Thereafter, Taiwan developed and built their own nukes stopping short of final assembly, but were persuaded to end the programme by the US in the late 80s. They have nuclear power stations though, so fuel could be produced.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
Exactly. It is a border dispute that should have been sorted out a decade ago by plebiscites, except Ukraine did not want to hold them (because they would have lost land).
It is only on pb.com that it is a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and Evil.
Bollocks. It was settled by plebiscite in the early 1990s. Then Putin came along and wanted to steal bits of a neighbouring country.
Often in war there isn't a clear good and evil.
Here there most certainly is.
The referendum was in 1991, just after the coup against Gorbachev. Things were rather different.
The Crimean Parliament declared Crimea independent of Ukraine in 1992.
You can argue that Crimea *might* have voted to join Russia at some point if they'd had a fair referendum but nothing like that is remotely true of the other regions that Putin started the current war over.
I have absolutely no idea what the result of a referendum in Donetsk might have been.
BTW, how do you know?
Of course, Ukraine could have just held a plebiscite in Donetsk 10 years ago or 5 years ago.
And -- if as you seem to believe -- it would have shown overwhelming support for staying in Ukraine, then that would have been a very powerful argument.
In which case, it is a bit surprising Ukraine never did, no?
Gosh should wales hold a plebiscite because ireland claims it would rather be irish. There was no push in crimea or donetsk for a referendum
Don't be ridiculous. Crimea declared itself independent in 1991. There have been ongoing problems in Donetsk for at least a decade. At minimum, a sizeable fraction of the population (perhaps < 50 per cent, perhaps > 50 per cent, I don't know) wanted Donetsk to join Russia.
There was a window when this could have been sorted out by plebiscites (not now, I agree).
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
Exactly. It is a border dispute that should have been sorted out a decade ago by plebiscites, except Ukraine did not want to hold them (because they would have lost land).
It is only on pb.com that it is a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and Evil.
Bollocks. It was settled by plebiscite in the early 1990s. Then Putin came along and wanted to steal bits of a neighbouring country.
Often in war there isn't a clear good and evil.
Here there most certainly is.
The referendum was in 1991, just after the coup against Gorbachev. Things were rather different.
The Crimean Parliament declared Crimea independent of Ukraine in 1992.
You can argue that Crimea *might* have voted to join Russia at some point if they'd had a fair referendum but nothing like that is remotely true of the other regions that Putin started the current war over.
I have absolutely no idea what the result of a referendum in Donetsk might have been.
BTW, how do you know?
Of course, Ukraine could have just held a plebiscite in Donetsk 10 years ago or 5 years ago.
And -- if as you seem to believe -- it would have shown overwhelming support for staying in Ukraine, then that would have been a very powerful argument.
In which case, it is a bit surprising Ukraine never did, no?
Why would it have done so 10 years ago?
Five years ago, of course, was after Putin invaded and made holding a fair plebiscite impossible.
PM Rishi Sunak might face the biggest geopolitical crisis in many decades in his first week in office. Unenviable
Sunak however is much less of a hawk than Boris and Truss were, indeed his position on Putin is not much different to Macron's.
Looks like Zelensky will therefore be relying on Biden for a firm response, which may be hope more than likelihood
Nah. He’s about to get inducted as PM. It’ll change him. Chancellor is a different role and requires different priorities, precisely because there’s others in Cabinet to argue the non-financial case.
It won't change his core beliefs, at the end of the day he is a PM of Indian not European heritage looking to links with Asia for the UK's future. He has no interest in getting involved in a border dispute on the Russian Ukraine border now there is little danger of Kyiv falling
This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve heard from you. And I was so hopeful after your general common sense regarding a Sunak premiership
I am astonished he made such comments and frankly he sounds like a Putin appeaser
If wanting to avoid being obliberated by a Russian nuclear missile over the Crimea and Donbass makes me a Putin appeaser so be it.
It used to be called realpolitik
You don't understand what realpolitik is. Clue: it isn't a synonym for appeasement.
If Putin launched a tactical nuke over Ukranian forces pushing into Donbass and Crimea and NATO forces then bombed and destroyed his fleet and Putin responded with further nuclear weapons against NATO, that wouldn't be appeasement, that would be WW3
Really get a grip.....Putin is the bully who asks for your lunch money and says if you give it to him he will not hassle you tomorrow....yes he will. Give in to his rhetoric of do what I want or I nuke is a recipe for disaster. Today it will be the Ukraine, tomorrow it will be poland or estonia. Stand up to the mad fuck now or we end up ceding eastern europe to him.
Ukraine is not in NATO, Poland and Estonia are. That is the difference.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
Did we (the uk) or did we not promise ukraine protection from nuclear states if they decomission nukes. The answer is yes we did. Why do our promises to nato countries mean a damn if that one doesnt? You are just an appeaser and would have been arguing in 38 and 39 against declaring war on hitler and then when he had conquered europe and was invading the uk you would have been a nazi collaborator because you have less spine than a jellyfish
oh go and fight then especially if you are calling others cowards - get out from behind keyboard warrior and go and fight - leave others to not risk nuclear war . We dont live in a world of goodies and baddies only reality.Its a slavic border dispute between two countries who were the same country not 30 years ago and both countries are as corrupt as hell
Exactly. It is a border dispute that should have been sorted out a decade ago by plebiscites, except Ukraine did not want to hold them (because they would have lost land).
It is only on pb.com that it is a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and Evil.
Bollocks. It was settled by plebiscite in the early 1990s. Then Putin came along and wanted to steal bits of a neighbouring country.
Often in war there isn't a clear good and evil.
Here there most certainly is.
The referendum was in 1991, just after the coup against Gorbachev. Things were rather different.
The Crimean Parliament declared Crimea independent of Ukraine in 1992.
You can argue that Crimea *might* have voted to join Russia at some point if they'd had a fair referendum but nothing like that is remotely true of the other regions that Putin started the current war over.
I have absolutely no idea what the result of a referendum in Donetsk might have been.
BTW, how do you know?
Of course, Ukraine could have just held a plebiscite in Donetsk 10 years ago or 5 years ago.
And -- if as you seem to believe -- it would have shown overwhelming support for staying in Ukraine, then that would have been a very powerful argument.
In which case, it is a bit surprising Ukraine never did, no?
Gosh should wales hold a plebiscite because ireland claims it would rather be irish. There was no push in crimea or donetsk for a referendum
Don't be ridiculous. Crimea declared itself independent in 1991. There has been ongoing problems in Donetsk for a t least a decade. At minimum, a sizeable fraction of the population (perhaps < 50 per cent, perhaps > 50 per cent, I don't know) wanted Donetsk to join Russia.
There was a window when this could have been sorted out by plebiscites (not now, I agree).
Ukraine should have done so.
Crimea going independent in a referendum is far short of crimea saying it wants to be part of russia sorry
Comments
Eg a , Ok. How about this. Yesterday I crossed the border at Nogales with my mates, we went for a brunch in an old Mexican cantina and drank about seventeen pints of margarita and then we went to a bar and did shots for several hours and then we went to another bar and I bought some weird peppercorns from a Mexican and then we came back to the ranch and we were all so drunk we dived into this swimming pool with our clothes on
And then as we all dried out by the fire my host - who served 15 years in military intelligence in Iraq and Afghanistan (and whose grandpa was US Ambassador to xxx - so he is super well informed) - said to me “I think Putin is going to go nuclear or blow up that dam. Or both”
On the latter, I think there is actually a higher chance of a miscommunication that leads to nuclear war if we start to be a bit loose around borders - for example, those islands in the Baltic. The message has to be clear now that that kind of behaviour will not be tolerated, lest Putin starts to sell himself the idea that NATO doesn't mind.
The Donbass and Crimea are not even central Ukraine but disputed border regions over which you are ready to go to nuclear war
The Russians want a way out of this horrible mess as much as us
Pushing for outright defeat of Russia sounds great but the reality is he has nukes and he will probably use them if he feels that he is existentially threatened or that Russia will be plunged into civil war by the humiliation
And if he uses nukes we likely all die and humanity is extinguished. At that point we are relying on the Russian chain of command resisting Putin’s edicts. That is a ridiculous risk
That doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to support it, but it does mean there's as an open argument as to whether to allow maximum risk to ourselves for a total victory in the war by Ukraine.
Tomorrow’s thrilling discussion: the weights of Boris Johnson, 2010-2022
https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1584615099100078080
It is only on pb.com that it is a titanic battle between the Forces of Good and Evil.
I'm getting old!
Still as someone who has faced cancer this year I'd rather get old than the alternative...
On NumberTwelve's point about how can you support the Ukrainians but not support a total victory, I would actually agree a lot with Leon on this. Keep up armament and diplomatic support , but do not continually feed the expectation of the inevitability of total victory in all areas , on the Ukrainian side.
@HYUFD is right, even if he phrases it a little clumsily. This is realpolitik. We deal with the world as it is and do our utmost to avoid total annihilation of our species. It is why we divided Korea rather than pushing for an outright victory which would have easily caused nuclear conflict
Pretty shit for North Koreans, but better than a dead planet
Often in war there isn't a clear good and evil.
Here there most certainly is.
For Ukraine? No
Ukraine had them too, but gave them up - on assurances the UK and US and China and Russia would ensure they were never exposed to these very threats. They have been fucked over.
I really wonder if the way out of this is to give Ukraine 20 or so ICBMs back. You know, with just enough range to reach St. Petersburg and Moscow. To restore the balance.
WW1 was the perhaps the biggest calamity in human political history?
That said Putin can't be allowed to go around invading any country he likes just because he has nukes. At some point he's going to have to be confronted directly IMO and he'll either step back from the brink or draw us into WW3.
Congratulations! You've just caused a massive round of nuclear proliferation!
The Crimean Parliament declared Crimea independent of Ukraine in 1992.
We have done plenty for Ukraine, we are just not willing to go to WW3 and potentially nuclear war with Russia for Ukraine, only for NATO states
‘South Korea eyes nuclear option amid North Korean threats
Julian Ryall Tokyo
10/19/2022October 19, 2022
A majority of people in South Korea would support obtaining nuclear weapons to deter Pyongyang”
https://www.dw.com/en/south-korea-eyes-nuclear-option-amid-north-korean-threats/a-63493061
South Korea and Japan will go nuclear. Maybe even Taiwan
And there will be others
You may not want to accept it, but the person making nuclear threats is the bad guy.
The full timetable comes out next year: Shenfield/Abbey Wood to Reading/Heathrow.
Warmest congratulations
@RishiSunak
! As you become UK PM, I look forward to working closely together on global issues, and implementing Roadmap 2030. Special Diwali wishes to the 'living bridge' of UK Indians, as we transform our historic ties into a modern partnership.
BTW, how do you know?
Of course, Ukraine could have just held a plebiscite in Donetsk 10 years ago or 5 years ago.
And -- if as you seem to believe -- it would have shown overwhelming support for staying in Ukraine, then that would have been a very powerful argument.
In which case, it is a bit surprising Ukraine never did, no?
There was a window when this could have been sorted out by plebiscites (not now, I agree).
Ukraine should have done so.
Five years ago, of course, was after Putin invaded and made holding a fair plebiscite impossible.