Trump said this to Zelensky at the WH on Friday and I don't think it's received enough attention. There's an implicit "any" there before "deal", isn't there. Given "we're out" means pulling the plug it's basically serving Ukraine up to Putin on a plate.
Ok, Putin wasn't at the meeting so it's just about possible he doesn't know about it. But he has his sources so I think we must assume he does. In which case Trump has telegraphed to Putin, "you have all the cards, Ukraine has none."
Why would he do this? One reason only. He wants any old deal so he can say he's done one. But he also has the red line of no financial or military cost to America. Cake and eat it in other words. It's not a coherent position and I can't see him pulling it off.
Didn't Trump also literally say Zelensky has no cards?
This whole thing is because Trump wants any deal, and has the power to force one. As unpalatable as most of us would find many deals, Ukraine and Zelensky might have signed one already through limited options if not for Vance and Trump also wanting to flex in front of the cameras a bit too.
Reform had this week to simply say “we are backing the government in defending against Putin.”
They have not. They’re equivocated. That alone excludes me - and I am convinced most voters - from ever even considering voting for them.
I can’t think this kind of thing goes down well in the Red Wall.
I am puzzled as to what space you think Labour can make for themselves in the 'sticking it to Trump' camp, when Starmer isn't sticking anything to Trump except perhaps his lips. Farage has been no more cautious in his responses than Starmer has.
Trump said this to Zelensky at the WH on Friday and I don't think it's received enough attention. There's an implicit "any" there before "deal", isn't there. Given "we're out" means pulling the plug it's basically serving Ukraine up to Putin on a plate.
Ok, Putin wasn't at the meeting so it's just about possible he doesn't know about it. But he has his sources so I think we must assume he does. In which case Trump has telegraphed to Putin, "you have all the cards, Ukraine has none."
Why would he do this? One reason only. He wants any old deal so he can say he's done one. But he also has the red line of no financial or military cost to America. Cake and eat it in other words. It's not a coherent position and I can't see him pulling it off.
Yes. Non USA NATO today has given Trump an exit strategy from his Friday catastrophe + clearly indicated that he has to take that route to stay friends with a vast range of decently civilised countries and placing the ball in Trump's court.
If Trump in the end says No, or raises the stakes too high, I think non USA NATO will carry on alone. Actually, I don't think they have a choice.
Indeed. In which case (your last para) he doesn't get what he's chomping for - the big beautiful "Trump stops the war" deal.
Trump said this to Zelensky at the WH on Friday and I don't think it's received enough attention. There's an implicit "any" there before "deal", isn't there. Given "we're out" means pulling the plug it's basically serving Ukraine up to Putin on a plate.
Ok, Putin wasn't at the meeting so it's just about possible he doesn't know about it. But he has his sources so I think we must assume he does. In which case Trump has telegraphed to Putin, "you have all the cards, Ukraine has none."
Why would he do this? One reason only. He wants any old deal so he can say he's done one. But he also has the red line of no financial or military cost to America. Cake and eat it in other words. It's not a coherent position and I can't see him pulling it off.
Yes. Non USA NATO today has given Trump an exit strategy from his Friday catastrophe + clearly indicated that he has to take that route to stay friends with a vast range of decently civilised countries and placing the ball in Trump's court.
If Trump in the end says No, or raises the stakes too high, I think non USA NATO will carry on alone. Actually, I don't think they have a choice.
Well done to all the leaders stepping up to the plate and filling the vacuum. They all deserve credit.
Putin thought America was all that mattered in the West and he may have bought off the President, but the West is more than just America. To go with the card analogy, Trump may want to fold, but non-USA NATO is calling Putin's bluff.
Agreed. Support from the test of NATO is looking sufficiently strong such that Ukraine can't be forced to accept peace on Putin's terms.
On the other hand, I can't see Putin accepting terms that see territory freezing at current conflict lines but with NATO members in Ukraine with US support.
So I suspect that means there will be no ceasefire in the foreseeable future.
Trump said this to Zelensky at the WH on Friday and I don't think it's received enough attention. There's an implicit "any" there before "deal", isn't there. Given "we're out" means pulling the plug it's basically serving Ukraine up to Putin on a plate.
Ok, Putin wasn't at the meeting so it's just about possible he doesn't know about it. But he has his sources so I think we must assume he does. In which case Trump has telegraphed to Putin, "you have all the cards, Ukraine has none."
Why would he do this? One reason only. He wants any old deal so he can say he's done one. But he also has the red line of no financial or military cost to America. Cake and eat it in other words. It's not a coherent position and I can't see him pulling it off.
Didn't Trump also literally say Zelensky has no cards?
This whole thing is because Trump wants any deal, and has the power to force one. As unpalatable as most of us would find many deals, Ukraine and Zelensky might have signed one already through limited options if not for Vance and Trump also wanting to flex in front of the cameras a bit too.
He thought he had the power to force one.
Europe and Zelensky are reminding him that people other than Putin and himself have agency too.
Is he self-aware enough to realise that he and America would be utterly humiliated if the war continued and Putin was defeated by Ukraine and the coalition of the willing without America?
Is he self-aware enough to grasp the off-ramp that Starmer is providing?
He's certainly duplicitous enough to do so if he wanted to. And to claim with a straight face he was happily supporting Ukraine all along.
Trump said this to Zelensky at the WH on Friday and I don't think it's received enough attention. There's an implicit "any" there before "deal", isn't there. Given "we're out" means pulling the plug it's basically serving Ukraine up to Putin on a plate.
Ok, Putin wasn't at the meeting so it's just about possible he doesn't know about it. But he has his sources so I think we must assume he does. In which case Trump has telegraphed to Putin, "you have all the cards, Ukraine has none."
Why would he do this? One reason only. He wants any old deal so he can say he's done one. But he also has the red line of no financial or military cost to America. Cake and eat it in other words. It's not a coherent position and I can't see him pulling it off.
Didn't Trump also literally say Zelensky has no cards?
This whole thing is because Trump wants any deal, and has the power to force one. As unpalatable as most of us would find many deals, Ukraine and Zelensky might have signed one already through limited options if not for Vance and Trump also wanting to flex in front of the cameras a bit too.
But does he have the power to force one with no ongoing cost to America? If he does, obviously he will. But I'm not sure he does.
Anyone read this ? t looks rather good. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Horsepower-Race-Western-Development/dp/1911658506 Calum Douglas, 40, is a professional mechanical engineer and aviation historian. He accidentally became a writer after discovering that many of the technologies of the Formula-One motor racing engines he was involved with had in fact been concieved in the Second World War...
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
May be we can work to the internationally accepted definition of “genocide” rather than the pretendy straw man made up by a Russian sympathising conspiracy theorist such as yourself?
Maybe you could actually READ you daft fuckwit - I was asking for John Lilburne's explanation of his supposition that hundreds of thousands would be killed if Ukraine surrendered. Genocide wasn't mentioned.
It was in the other post line to which you originally replied on. But of course truth doesn’t matter to you. Just your master’s bidding.
This conversation is showing you up to be a complete loon. I questioned a claim that Putin would slaughter hundreds of thousands post-"surrender". Now I am apparently twisting the meaning of genocide by using the frames of reference given in the original post?
As for 'my master's bidding' - I don't have a master, and that allows me to speak as I find. Perhaps you should think about who has benefitted you, and how that has informed your own viewpoint, because your above post reads like classic projection to me.
The original post that I replied to - and where you responded to me - talked about genocide and you responded with a straw man on 200,000+ deaths
I know that you have consistently parroted Russian propaganda lines from MH17 onward. But I forget you are a truth seeker who treats all statements by western governments with scepticism. And yet, somehow, you always end up sharing the same position as the Russians.
But you’re right. I’ve no evidence that you are paid by the Russians. May be you are just a fool instead.
Dear God, This was the post I replied to:
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
200,000+ is the minimum number that that comment could have been referring to. So it wasn't any kind of 'straw man' - it was a conservative summation of the statement I took issue with.
Quite. The fact that Putin started a war that has killed well over 200,000 people shouldn't prejudice us against his peaceful intentions.
Reform had this week to simply say “we are backing the government in defending against Putin.”
They have not. They’re equivocated. That alone excludes me - and I am convinced most voters - from ever even considering voting for them.
I can’t think this kind of thing goes down well in the Red Wall.
Yes, though the next election is four years away in times when a week is a long time. But when it comes to Reform polling figures, let us say that 30% can give them a lot of seats and clout. But that is only in a 'normal' contest. As things stand millions of voters would in fact vote for whoever can beat Reform.
Trump said this to Zelensky at the WH on Friday and I don't think it's received enough attention. There's an implicit "any" there before "deal", isn't there. Given "we're out" means pulling the plug it's basically serving Ukraine up to Putin on a plate.
Ok, Putin wasn't at the meeting so it's just about possible he doesn't know about it. But he has his sources so I think we must assume he does. In which case Trump has telegraphed to Putin, "you have all the cards, Ukraine has none."
Why would he do this? One reason only. He wants any old deal so he can say he's done one. But he also has the red line of no financial or military cost to America. Cake and eat it in other words. It's not a coherent position and I can't see him pulling it off.
Didn't Trump also literally say Zelensky has no cards?
This whole thing is because Trump wants any deal, and has the power to force one. As unpalatable as most of us would find many deals, Ukraine and Zelensky might have signed one already through limited options if not for Vance and Trump also wanting to flex in front of the cameras a bit too.
But does he have the power to force one with no ongoing cost to America? If he does, obviously he will. But I'm not sure he does.
There's been some cost already in terms of undercutting longstanding relations and alliances, which he admittedly does not care about and has been upfront in not caring about.
He may not be able to enforce any deal, that is what he may have learned, but I think he can still force some deal - that people are talking about a deal so much is indeed down to him.
Trump said this to Zelensky at the WH on Friday and I don't think it's received enough attention. There's an implicit "any" there before "deal", isn't there. Given "we're out" means pulling the plug it's basically serving Ukraine up to Putin on a plate.
Ok, Putin wasn't at the meeting so it's just about possible he doesn't know about it. But he has his sources so I think we must assume he does. In which case Trump has telegraphed to Putin, "you have all the cards, Ukraine has none."
Why would he do this? One reason only. He wants any old deal so he can say he's done one. But he also has the red line of no financial or military cost to America. Cake and eat it in other words. It's not a coherent position and I can't see him pulling it off.
Didn't Trump also literally say Zelensky has no cards?
This whole thing is because Trump wants any deal, and has the power to force one. As unpalatable as most of us would find many deals, Ukraine and Zelensky might have signed one already through limited options if not for Vance and Trump also wanting to flex in front of the cameras a bit too.
He thought he had the power to force one.
Europe and Zelensky are reminding him that people other than Putin and himself have agency too.
Is he self-aware enough to realise that he and America would be utterly humiliated if the war continued and Putin was defeated by Ukraine and the coalition of the willing without America?
Is he self-aware enough to grasp the off-ramp that Starmer is providing?
He's certainly duplicitous enough to do so if he wanted to. And to claim with a straight face he was happily supporting Ukraine all along.
Trump has cards, including a get out of jail free card, courtesy of the Supreme Court. Plus at least 2 up his sleeve that form no part of the pack.
Trump said this to Zelensky at the WH on Friday and I don't think it's received enough attention. There's an implicit "any" there before "deal", isn't there. Given "we're out" means pulling the plug it's basically serving Ukraine up to Putin on a plate.
Ok, Putin wasn't at the meeting so it's just about possible he doesn't know about it. But he has his sources so I think we must assume he does. In which case Trump has telegraphed to Putin, "you have all the cards, Ukraine has none."
Why would he do this? One reason only. He wants any old deal so he can say he's done one. But he also has the red line of no financial or military cost to America. Cake and eat it in other words. It's not a coherent position and I can't see him pulling it off.
Didn't Trump also literally say Zelensky has no cards?
This whole thing is because Trump wants any deal, and has the power to force one. As unpalatable as most of us would find many deals, Ukraine and Zelensky might have signed one already through limited options if not for Vance and Trump also wanting to flex in front of the cameras a bit too.
But does he have the power to force one with no ongoing cost to America? If he does, obviously he will. But I'm not sure he does.
He doesn't have the power to force anything.
As Zelensky, Starmer and the rest of non-USA NATO have shown so clearly today.
How he handles that is going to be interesting to see. It could go any way really.
He certainly won't like the impudence of not getting his way, but if he sees the writing on the wall he might do the right thing for the wrong reason of not wanting to be shown up, and then claim with a straight face that its what he wanted all along.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
May be we can work to the internationally accepted definition of “genocide” rather than the pretendy straw man made up by a Russian sympathising conspiracy theorist such as yourself?
Maybe you could actually READ you daft fuckwit - I was asking for John Lilburne's explanation of his supposition that hundreds of thousands would be killed if Ukraine surrendered. Genocide wasn't mentioned.
It was in the other post line to which you originally replied on. But of course truth doesn’t matter to you. Just your master’s bidding.
This conversation is showing you up to be a complete loon. I questioned a claim that Putin would slaughter hundreds of thousands post-"surrender". Now I am apparently twisting the meaning of genocide by using the frames of reference given in the original post?
As for 'my master's bidding' - I don't have a master, and that allows me to speak as I find. Perhaps you should think about who has benefitted you, and how that has informed your own viewpoint, because your above post reads like classic projection to me.
The original post that I replied to - and where you responded to me - talked about genocide and you responded with a straw man on 200,000+ deaths
I know that you have consistently parroted Russian propaganda lines from MH17 onward. But I forget you are a truth seeker who treats all statements by western governments with scepticism. And yet, somehow, you always end up sharing the same position as the Russians.
But you’re right. I’ve no evidence that you are paid by the Russians. May be you are just a fool instead.
Dear God, This was the post I replied to:
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
200,000+ is the minimum number that that comment could have been referring to. So it wasn't any kind of 'straw man' - it was a conservative summation of the statement I took issue with.
Did you read the Wikipedia article I posted? Or do you regard it as anti-Russian propaganda?
No, sorry, I was too busy defending myself from accusations of redefining genocide and making straw men for numbers that you had put forward. I can't see it in the thread, so if you wish to repost it, I'll read it.
Russians. It's what they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes. Along with a prediction that what the Russians will do to Ukrainian intelligentsia if they win will look rather like Katyń
Reform had this week to simply say “we are backing the government in defending against Putin.”
They have not. They’re equivocated. That alone excludes me - and I am convinced most voters - from ever even considering voting for them.
I can’t think this kind of thing goes down well in the Red Wall.
Yes, though the next election is four years away in times when a week is a long time. But when it comes to Reform polling figures, let us say that 30% can give them a lot of seats and clout. But that is only in a 'normal' contest. As things stand millions of voters would in fact vote for whoever can beat Reform.
Even if Reform poll 30%, the combined Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat votes will still be well ahead and would probably be able to stop a Reform Government.
We now need Badenoch to come out and say a Conservative Party led by her would under no circumstances support a minority Reform Government.
The amusing thing is of course if Trump does decide after today to take the off-ramp Starmer etc is building him and back Ukraine with the rest of non-USA NATO, then he will not only say its what he always wanted with a straight face but all those GOP people currently attacking Zelensky will be saying its the right thing to do too.
In Trump's 1984 world if he says we are at war with Eastasia then we have always been at war with Eastasia.
No idea if he will, but the likes of MTG etc will be slavishly following the new line if it does change.
Turkey's participation in the summit is interesting. Powerful NATO member but outside of the EU despite their aspirations. They could deliver a lot for European security and they are certainly not afraid if mixing it. As I say interesting.
It's unfortunate. Europe is supposed to be sending a message that we don't approve of changing borders by force etc. Yet we go and invite the country that illegally occupies northern Cyprus.
Reform had this week to simply say “we are backing the government in defending against Putin.”
They have not. They’re equivocated. That alone excludes me - and I am convinced most voters - from ever even considering voting for them.
I can’t think this kind of thing goes down well in the Red Wall.
I am puzzled as to what space you think Labour can make for themselves in the 'sticking it to Trump' camp, when Starmer isn't sticking anything to Trump except perhaps his lips. Farage has been no more cautious in his responses than Starmer has.
Don't be thick.
Most of us to the left of centre are outraged that Starmer rewarded a seditious traitor, an adjudicated rapist, a felon and quite possibly a Russian asset with a second State visit. I suspect Starmer was forced to swallow his own vomit as he read out the offending paragraph (can't Trump read?). I understand, although I wish I didn't, that massaging Trump's ego can achieve results due entirely to his vanity. I suppose it was unfortunately worth a shot.
What was you ex MP friend from Norfolk's excuse for metaphorically felating that great big orange dick?
Trump said this to Zelensky at the WH on Friday and I don't think it's received enough attention. There's an implicit "any" there before "deal", isn't there. Given "we're out" means pulling the plug it's basically serving Ukraine up to Putin on a plate.
Ok, Putin wasn't at the meeting so it's just about possible he doesn't know about it. But he has his sources so I think we must assume he does. In which case Trump has telegraphed to Putin, "you have all the cards, Ukraine has none."
Why would he do this? One reason only. He wants any old deal so he can say he's done one. But he also has the red line of no financial or military cost to America. Cake and eat it in other words. It's not a coherent position and I can't see him pulling it off.
Didn't Trump also literally say Zelensky has no cards?
This whole thing is because Trump wants any deal, and has the power to force one. As unpalatable as most of us would find many deals, Ukraine and Zelensky might have signed one already through limited options if not for Vance and Trump also wanting to flex in front of the cameras a bit too.
But does he have the power to force one with no ongoing cost to America? If he does, obviously he will. But I'm not sure he does.
He doesn't have the power to force anything.
As Zelensky, Starmer and the rest of non-USA NATO have shown so clearly today.
How he handles that is going to be interesting to see. It could go any way really.
He certainly won't like the impudence of not getting his way, but if he sees the writing on the wall he might do the right thing for the wrong reason of not wanting to be shown up, and then claim with a straight face that its what he wanted all along.
Yes I'm not making any predictions other than however bad people think Donald Trump can behave they'll be coming up short.
Anyone read this ? t looks rather good. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Horsepower-Race-Western-Development/dp/1911658506 Calum Douglas, 40, is a professional mechanical engineer and aviation historian. He accidentally became a writer after discovering that many of the technologies of the Formula-One motor racing engines he was involved with had in fact been concieved in the Second World War...
I have, and found it very interesting if - as it should rightly be - quite technical at times. But others on PB are more informed than I am. I think it was @Malmesbury who recommended it in the first place on here some years back (hence my reading it).
Edit: or am I confusing his recommendation with another book?
Trump said this to Zelensky at the WH on Friday and I don't think it's received enough attention. There's an implicit "any" there before "deal", isn't there. Given "we're out" means pulling the plug it's basically serving Ukraine up to Putin on a plate.
Ok, Putin wasn't at the meeting so it's just about possible he doesn't know about it. But he has his sources so I think we must assume he does. In which case Trump has telegraphed to Putin, "you have all the cards, Ukraine has none."
Why would he do this? One reason only. He wants any old deal so he can say he's done one. But he also has the red line of no financial or military cost to America. Cake and eat it in other words. It's not a coherent position and I can't see him pulling it off.
Yes. Non USA NATO today has given Trump an exit strategy from his Friday catastrophe + clearly indicated that he has to take that route to stay friends with a vast range of decently civilised countries and placing the ball in Trump's court.
If Trump in the end says No, or raises the stakes too high, I think non USA NATO will carry on alone. Actually, I don't think they have a choice.
Well done to all the leaders stepping up to the plate and filling the vacuum. They all deserve credit.
Putin thought America was all that mattered in the West and he may have bought off the President, but the West is more than just America. To go with the card analogy, Trump may want to fold, but non-USA NATO is calling Putin's bluff.
Agreed. Support from the test of NATO is looking sufficiently strong such that Ukraine can't be forced to accept peace on Putin's terms.
On the other hand, I can't see Putin accepting terms that see territory freezing at current conflict lines but with NATO members in Ukraine with US support.
So I suspect that means there will be no ceasefire in the foreseeable future.
I hesitate to mention it but it may have occurred to some minds that actually there is a need to keep Russia's forces busily engaged while Europe rearms. Starmer and Macron's nightmare at this actual moment is an attack on Lithuania via Belarus to reunite mainland Russia/Belarus with what Kant would have called Konigsberg.
Trump said this to Zelensky at the WH on Friday and I don't think it's received enough attention. There's an implicit "any" there before "deal", isn't there. Given "we're out" means pulling the plug it's basically serving Ukraine up to Putin on a plate.
Ok, Putin wasn't at the meeting so it's just about possible he doesn't know about it. But he has his sources so I think we must assume he does. In which case Trump has telegraphed to Putin, "you have all the cards, Ukraine has none."
Why would he do this? One reason only. He wants any old deal so he can say he's done one. But he also has the red line of no financial or military cost to America. Cake and eat it in other words. It's not a coherent position and I can't see him pulling it off.
Didn't Trump also literally say Zelensky has no cards?
This whole thing is because Trump wants any deal, and has the power to force one. As unpalatable as most of us would find many deals, Ukraine and Zelensky might have signed one already through limited options if not for Vance and Trump also wanting to flex in front of the cameras a bit too.
But does he have the power to force one with no ongoing cost to America? If he does, obviously he will. But I'm not sure he does.
He doesn't have the power to force anything.
As Zelensky, Starmer and the rest of non-USA NATO have shown so clearly today.
How he handles that is going to be interesting to see. It could go any way really.
He certainly won't like the impudence of not getting his way, but if he sees the writing on the wall he might do the right thing for the wrong reason of not wanting to be shown up, and then claim with a straight face that its what he wanted all along.
I think this is peak USA. China is just loving it, and Europe is waking up.
Quite what the rest of he world makes of all this I don't know. Most of the world isn't involved.
See also elections that he is alleged to have lost.
The free speech/media thing is fascinating. USA is so wedded to both that they seem ineradicable, but no proper plutocratic kleptocratic gangster oligarchy can fully function without curbing it. Can they?
I didn't expect much from Mandleson, but even so this is very disappointing:
"Mandelson says Zelenskyy must give his “unequivocal backing” to Trump’s peace plan. Not sure this is the right message to be sending given what this peace plan seems to involve"
The message must be approved by the government, which suggests they are pretty pessimistic about how much can be done without the USA and thus conceded to Trump's ego to get something done.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Probably. The position of the USA and others not being in a position to fully replace it instantly make Ukraine's position extremely difficult. I see nothing wrong with a focus on strengthening their position as much as is possible to get as good a deal as they feel they can live with (by necessity).
If they cannot live with what they are being told to accept by the USA then again I have no issue with supporting them as much as we can in doing so.
Trump said this to Zelensky at the WH on Friday and I don't think it's received enough attention. There's an implicit "any" there before "deal", isn't there. Given "we're out" means pulling the plug it's basically serving Ukraine up to Putin on a plate.
Ok, Putin wasn't at the meeting so it's just about possible he doesn't know about it. But he has his sources so I think we must assume he does. In which case Trump has telegraphed to Putin, "you have all the cards, Ukraine has none."
Why would he do this? One reason only. He wants any old deal so he can say he's done one. But he also has the red line of no financial or military cost to America. Cake and eat it in other words. It's not a coherent position and I can't see him pulling it off.
Didn't Trump also literally say Zelensky has no cards?
This whole thing is because Trump wants any deal, and has the power to force one. As unpalatable as most of us would find many deals, Ukraine and Zelensky might have signed one already through limited options if not for Vance and Trump also wanting to flex in front of the cameras a bit too.
But does he have the power to force one with no ongoing cost to America? If he does, obviously he will. But I'm not sure he does.
There's been some cost already in terms of undercutting longstanding relations and alliances, which he admittedly does not care about and has been upfront in not caring about.
He may not be able to enforce any deal, that is what he may have learned, but I think he can still force some deal - that people are talking about a deal so much is indeed down to him.
US security guarantees are needed for any peace deal. Trump won't give them and even if he did they wouldn't be believed. Conundrum.
See also elections that he is alleged to have lost.
The free speech/media thing is fascinating. USA is so wedded to both that they seem ineradicable, but no proper plutocratic kleptocratic gangster oligarchy can fully function without curbing it. Can they?
Easy, you just undermine, bully and delegitimise news sources you don't like. So there's functionally 'free speech' but few people listening. Look at what Musk has done to Twitter/X to ensure one type of speech gets shoved in your face, while another is suppressed.
Plus, Musk, Vance et al's commitment to 'free speech' is not particularly deep. They'll always find reasons to ban things they don't like.
I didn't expect much from Mandleson, but even so this is very disappointing:
"Mandelson says Zelenskyy must give his “unequivocal backing” to Trump’s peace plan. Not sure this is the right message to be sending given what this peace plan seems to involve"
The message must be approved by the government, which suggests they are pretty pessimistic about how much can be done without the USA and thus conceded to Trump's ego to get something done.
I'm not sure. Keri Russell in The Diplomat seems to run US foreign policy.
I didn't expect much from Mandleson, but even so this is very disappointing:
"Mandelson says Zelenskyy must give his “unequivocal backing” to Trump’s peace plan. Not sure this is the right message to be sending given what this peace plan seems to involve"
The message must be approved by the government, which suggests they are pretty pessimistic about how much can be done without the USA and thus conceded to Trump's ego to get something done.
I'm not sure. Keri Russell in The Diplomat seems to run US foreign policy.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
May be we can work to the internationally accepted definition of “genocide” rather than the pretendy straw man made up by a Russian sympathising conspiracy theorist such as yourself?
Maybe you could actually READ you daft fuckwit - I was asking for John Lilburne's explanation of his supposition that hundreds of thousands would be killed if Ukraine surrendered. Genocide wasn't mentioned.
It was in the other post line to which you originally replied on. But of course truth doesn’t matter to you. Just your master’s bidding.
This conversation is showing you up to be a complete loon. I questioned a claim that Putin would slaughter hundreds of thousands post-"surrender". Now I am apparently twisting the meaning of genocide by using the frames of reference given in the original post?
As for 'my master's bidding' - I don't have a master, and that allows me to speak as I find. Perhaps you should think about who has benefitted you, and how that has informed your own viewpoint, because your above post reads like classic projection to me.
The original post that I replied to - and where you responded to me - talked about genocide and you responded with a straw man on 200,000+ deaths
I know that you have consistently parroted Russian propaganda lines from MH17 onward. But I forget you are a truth seeker who treats all statements by western governments with scepticism. And yet, somehow, you always end up sharing the same position as the Russians.
But you’re right. I’ve no evidence that you are paid by the Russians. May be you are just a fool instead.
Dear God, This was the post I replied to:
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
200,000+ is the minimum number that that comment could have been referring to. So it wasn't any kind of 'straw man' - it was a conservative summation of the statement I took issue with.
Did you read the Wikipedia article I posted? Or do you regard it as anti-Russian propaganda?
No, sorry, I was too busy defending myself from accusations of redefining genocide and making straw men for numbers that you had put forward. I can't see it in the thread, so if you wish to repost it, I'll read it.
Russians. It's what they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes. Along with a prediction that what the Russians will do to Ukrainian intelligentsia if they win will look rather like Katyń
Sure. The streak of brutality that runs through Russian culture predates the Soviets - it even predates Peter the Great. I know that. I am not actually defending the invasion (I never have) or suggesting that Putin has "peaceful intentions". I took took issue with your statement because I see Russia killing 200,000 as a consequence of a ceasefire (or Ukrainian surrender as you put it) as extremely unlikely.
Russia can already (and does) kill people within the Ukrainian territory it holds. I see peace as making such killings less likely, due to such events not being camouflaged by the fog of war. I can certainly see opponents of Russia being targeted, but I would also imagine that they would be allowed to depart Russian-held territory as part of the peace deal (in exchange for those loyal to Russia being permitted to leave Ukrainian-held territory). So all in all, I see less Ukrainian people dying at the hands of Russia as a result of a peace deal, rather than more.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
A good deal is ideal, but no deal is better than a bad deal.
And the only way to get a good deal is to be prepared to accept walking away with no deal.
You should have learnt that lesson five years ago.
It's great fun playing with the lives of thousands of people you don't know, isn't it.
Maybe the Ukrainians think it is better to continue killing Russians, destroying their tanks, blowing up critical infrastructure, even at the cost of Ukrainian lives, rather than to accept a bad deal.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
US security guarantees are needed for any peace deal. Trump won't give them and even if he did they wouldn't be believed. Conundrum.
Even now people don't seem to have accepted that the US is out of the picture. The US can't offer us anything we would need to rely on, and may in time, which could be short, even turn into a direct adversary.
I hope that all these meetings and statements are playing for time, and behind the scenes we are all preparing for much worse.
Sorry if already posted, but this is a quite interesting piece of ChatGPT psychology on the Trump/Zelensky disaster. That's what happens when you meet a narcissistic psychopath and his sidekick:
Conclusion Trump and his team employed the full spectrum of abusive tactics: gaslighting, victim-blaming, coercion into gratitude, and manipulation of the concepts of peace and diplomacy. This was not a negotiation—it was an attempt to force Zelensky into accepting terms beneficial to the US but potentially fatal for Ukraine. 1. Blaming the victim for their own situation Trump explicitly tells Zelensky: “You have allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.” This is classic abuser rhetoric—blaming the victim for their suffering. 2. Pressure and coercion into ‘gratitude’ Vance demands that Zelensky say “thank you.” This is an extremely toxic tactic—forcing the victim to express gratitude for the help they desperately need, only to later accuse them of ingratitude if they attempt to assert their rights. 3. Manipulating the concept of ‘peace’ Trump claims that Zelensky is “not ready for peace.” However, what he actually means is Ukraine’s capitulation. This is a classic manipulation technique—substituting the idea of a just peace with the notion of surrender. 4. Refusing to acknowledge the reality of war Trump repeatedly insists that Zelensky has “no cards to play” and that “without us, you have nothing.” This is yet another abusive tactic—undermining the victim’s efforts by asserting that they are powerless without the mercy of their ‘saviour.’ 5. Devaluing the victims of war “If you get a ceasefire, you must accept it so that bullets stop flying and your people stop dying,” Trump says. Yet, he ignores the fact that a ceasefire without guarantees is merely an opportunity for Russia to strike again. 6. Dominance tactics Trump constantly interrupts Zelensky, cutting him off: “No, no, you’ve already said enough,” This is deliberate psychological pressure designed to establish a hierarchy in which Zelensky is the subordinate. 7. Forcing capitulation under the guise of ‘diplomacy’ Vance asserts that “the path to peace lies through diplomacy.” This is a classic strategy where the aggressor is given the opportunity to continue their aggression unchallenged. 8. Projection and distortion of reality Trump declares: “You are playing with the lives of millions of people.” Yet, in reality, it is he who is doing exactly that—shifting responsibility onto Zelensky. 9. Creating the illusion that Ukraine ‘owes’ the US Yes, the US is assisting Ukraine, but presenting this aid as “you must obey, or you will receive nothing” is not a partnership—it is financial and military coercion. 10. Undermining Ukraine’s resistance Trump states that “if it weren’t for our weapons, this war would have ended in two weeks.” This is an attempt to erase Ukraine’s achievements and portray its efforts as entirely dependent on US support.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
A good deal is ideal, but no deal is better than a bad deal.
And the only way to get a good deal is to be prepared to accept walking away with no deal.
You should have learnt that lesson five years ago.
It's great fun playing with the lives of thousands of people you don't know, isn't it.
More fun than sacrificing the liberty of millions of lives, yes.
Its funny how you wouldn't accept a temporary cessation of liberty to save lives for Covid but you see a permanent cessation of liberty under a dictator as a price worth paying to save lives in war.
That people are dying is not a reason to end war, its a reason to press on for victory.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
May be we can work to the internationally accepted definition of “genocide” rather than the pretendy straw man made up by a Russian sympathising conspiracy theorist such as yourself?
Maybe you could actually READ you daft fuckwit - I was asking for John Lilburne's explanation of his supposition that hundreds of thousands would be killed if Ukraine surrendered. Genocide wasn't mentioned.
It was in the other post line to which you originally replied on. But of course truth doesn’t matter to you. Just your master’s bidding.
This conversation is showing you up to be a complete loon. I questioned a claim that Putin would slaughter hundreds of thousands post-"surrender". Now I am apparently twisting the meaning of genocide by using the frames of reference given in the original post?
As for 'my master's bidding' - I don't have a master, and that allows me to speak as I find. Perhaps you should think about who has benefitted you, and how that has informed your own viewpoint, because your above post reads like classic projection to me.
The original post that I replied to - and where you responded to me - talked about genocide and you responded with a straw man on 200,000+ deaths
I know that you have consistently parroted Russian propaganda lines from MH17 onward. But I forget you are a truth seeker who treats all statements by western governments with scepticism. And yet, somehow, you always end up sharing the same position as the Russians.
But you’re right. I’ve no evidence that you are paid by the Russians. May be you are just a fool instead.
Dear God, This was the post I replied to:
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
200,000+ is the minimum number that that comment could have been referring to. So it wasn't any kind of 'straw man' - it was a conservative summation of the statement I took issue with.
Did you read the Wikipedia article I posted? Or do you regard it as anti-Russian propaganda?
No, sorry, I was too busy defending myself from accusations of redefining genocide and making straw men for numbers that you had put forward. I can't see it in the thread, so if you wish to repost it, I'll read it.
Russians. It's what they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes. Along with a prediction that what the Russians will do to Ukrainian intelligentsia if they win will look rather like Katyń
Sure. The streak of brutality that runs through Russian culture predates the Soviets - it even predates Peter the Great. I know that. I am not actually defending the invasion (I never have) or suggesting that Putin has "peaceful intentions". I took took issue with your statement because I see Russia killing 200,000 as a consequence of a ceasefire (or Ukrainian surrender as you put it) as extremely unlikely.
Russia can already (and does) kill people within the Ukrainian territory it holds. I see peace as making such killings less likely, due to such events not being camouflaged by the fog of war. I can certainly see opponents of Russia being targeted, but I would also imagine that they would be allowed to depart Russian-held territory as part of the peace deal (in exchange for those loyal to Russia being permitted to leave Ukrainian-held territory). So all in all, I see less Ukrainian people dying at the hands of Russia as a result of a peace deal, rather than more.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
A good deal is ideal, but no deal is better than a bad deal.
And the only way to get a good deal is to be prepared to accept walking away with no deal.
You should have learnt that lesson five years ago.
It's great fun playing with the lives of thousands of people you don't know, isn't it.
He's not playing with anything, this same argument was made 3 years ago for crying out loud. For one thing advising Ukraine to concede its territory is also playing with the lives of thousands by submitting them to Russian rule forever. But more fundamentally it's deferring to whether Ukraine and its people feel the cost of continuing is worth it and supporting them if they do.
Reasonable people may differ about that position, but the 'playing with lives' argument is as silly as the other one from 3 years ago 'hurr hurr, I don't see you going on the front line'.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
Lord Mandelson has called on Ukraine to unilaterallly call a ceasefire.
Sounds as though he might be prioritising his Washington connections over representing his government.
Is that based on anything though? What indication is there he would be conducting his own foreign policy, rather than Starmer playing one role whilst Mandelson tries to match the tone in Washington?
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
May be we can work to the internationally accepted definition of “genocide” rather than the pretendy straw man made up by a Russian sympathising conspiracy theorist such as yourself?
Maybe you could actually READ you daft fuckwit - I was asking for John Lilburne's explanation of his supposition that hundreds of thousands would be killed if Ukraine surrendered. Genocide wasn't mentioned.
It was in the other post line to which you originally replied on. But of course truth doesn’t matter to you. Just your master’s bidding.
This conversation is showing you up to be a complete loon. I questioned a claim that Putin would slaughter hundreds of thousands post-"surrender". Now I am apparently twisting the meaning of genocide by using the frames of reference given in the original post?
As for 'my master's bidding' - I don't have a master, and that allows me to speak as I find. Perhaps you should think about who has benefitted you, and how that has informed your own viewpoint, because your above post reads like classic projection to me.
The original post that I replied to - and where you responded to me - talked about genocide and you responded with a straw man on 200,000+ deaths
I know that you have consistently parroted Russian propaganda lines from MH17 onward. But I forget you are a truth seeker who treats all statements by western governments with scepticism. And yet, somehow, you always end up sharing the same position as the Russians.
But you’re right. I’ve no evidence that you are paid by the Russians. May be you are just a fool instead.
Dear God, This was the post I replied to:
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
200,000+ is the minimum number that that comment could have been referring to. So it wasn't any kind of 'straw man' - it was a conservative summation of the statement I took issue with.
Did you read the Wikipedia article I posted? Or do you regard it as anti-Russian propaganda?
No, sorry, I was too busy defending myself from accusations of redefining genocide and making straw men for numbers that you had put forward. I can't see it in the thread, so if you wish to repost it, I'll read it.
Russians. It's what they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes. Along with a prediction that what the Russians will do to Ukrainian intelligentsia if they win will look rather like Katyń
Sure. The streak of brutality that runs through Russian culture predates the Soviets - it even predates Peter the Great. I know that. I am not actually defending the invasion (I never have) or suggesting that Putin has "peaceful intentions". I took took issue with your statement because I see Russia killing 200,000 as a consequence of a ceasefire (or Ukrainian surrender as you put it) as extremely unlikely.
Russia can already (and does) kill people within the Ukrainian territory it holds. I see peace as making such killings less likely, due to such events not being camouflaged by the fog of war. I can certainly see opponents of Russia being targeted, but I would also imagine that they would be allowed to depart Russian-held territory as part of the peace deal (in exchange for those loyal to Russia being permitted to leave Ukrainian-held territory). So all in all, I see less Ukrainian people dying at the hands of Russia as a result of a peace deal, rather than more.
Hundreds of thousands is 100k+ not 200k plus. Even if you wanted to be pedantic about the plural, it begins at 100,001 and not 200,000.
And 100k or 200k+ dying as a result of a Russian victory is entirely plausible given what we've seen and the mass graves that have followed Russian occupation elsewhere.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
Lord Mandelson has called on Ukraine to unilaterallly call a ceasefire.
Anyone read this ? t looks rather good. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Horsepower-Race-Western-Development/dp/1911658506 Calum Douglas, 40, is a professional mechanical engineer and aviation historian. He accidentally became a writer after discovering that many of the technologies of the Formula-One motor racing engines he was involved with had in fact been concieved in the Second World War...
I have, and found it very interesting if - as it should rightly be - quite technical at times. But others on PB are more informed than I am. I think it was @Malmesbury who recommended it in the first place on here some years back (hence my reading it).
Edit: or am I confusing his recommendation with another book?
I bought a copy and found it stuffed full of interesting information, much of it technical, which I liked, but it was rather disjointed and needs a good edit tbh.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
Lord Mandelson has called on Ukraine to unilaterallly call a ceasefire.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
Lord Mandelson has called on Ukraine to unilaterallly call a ceasefire.
Anyone read this ? t looks rather good. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Horsepower-Race-Western-Development/dp/1911658506 Calum Douglas, 40, is a professional mechanical engineer and aviation historian. He accidentally became a writer after discovering that many of the technologies of the Formula-One motor racing engines he was involved with had in fact been concieved in the Second World War...
I have, and found it very interesting if - as it should rightly be - quite technical at times. But others on PB are more informed than I am. I think it was @Malmesbury who recommended it in the first place on here some years back (hence my reading it).
Edit: or am I confusing his recommendation with another book?
I bought a copy and found it stuffed full of interesting information, much of it technical, which I liked, but it was rather disjointed and needs a good edit tbh.
Thanks, to both of you; that’s useful. PBers come through.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
Going for Gold was to daytime TV in the late eighties and early nineties what Crown Court was in the early to mid seventies (even though it ran til 1984 and it’s last story has a rather triggering name for modern sensibilities)
Anyone read this ? t looks rather good. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Horsepower-Race-Western-Development/dp/1911658506 Calum Douglas, 40, is a professional mechanical engineer and aviation historian. He accidentally became a writer after discovering that many of the technologies of the Formula-One motor racing engines he was involved with had in fact been concieved in the Second World War...
I have, and found it very interesting if - as it should rightly be - quite technical at times. But others on PB are more informed than I am. I think it was @Malmesbury who recommended it in the first place on here some years back (hence my reading it).
Edit: or am I confusing his recommendation with another book?
I bought a copy and found it stuffed full of interesting information, much of it technical, which I liked, but it was rather disjointed and needs a good edit tbh.
Some of the primary source stuff makes it very worthwhile. The German headship on chromium shortages for valves, the incredulity of Farnborough at the performance curves for a hypothetical P-51 with a Merlin (cruise speed especially)… tons of nuggets.
It’s not a flowing story like Warrior to Dreadnought. There are chunks missing from the sleeve valve story, for example. And why the Centaurus was so delayed…
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
Lord Mandelson has called on Ukraine to unilaterallly call a ceasefire.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
Idiot
You're an idiot if you think it is in the Ukrainians' interest to agree a ceasefire when 30% of their country is still occupied and the enemy are resorting to donkeys to supply the front line, allowing them to regroup and rearm. You fight wars to win. The correct thing to do is to continue grinding Russia into the dirt.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
Idiot
You're an idiot if you think it is in the Ukrainians' interest to agree a ceasefire when 30% of their country is still occupied and the enemy are resorting to donkeys to supply the front line, allowing them to regroup and rearm. You fight wars to win. The correct thing to do is to continue grinding Russia into the dirt.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
A good deal is ideal, but no deal is better than a bad deal.
And the only way to get a good deal is to be prepared to accept walking away with no deal.
You should have learnt that lesson five years ago.
It's great fun playing with the lives of thousands of people you don't know, isn't it.
He's not playing with anything, this same argument was made 3 years ago for crying out loud. For one thing advising Ukraine to concede its territory is also playing with the lives of thousands by submitting them to Russian rule forever. But more fundamentally it's deferring to whether Ukraine and its people feel the cost of continuing is worth it and supporting them if they do.
Reasonable people may differ about that position, but the 'playing with lives' argument is as silly as the other one from 3 years ago 'hurr hurr, I don't see you going on the front line'.
There is no plan anywhere to do what the PB Ukraine ultras want and are advocating.
Despite the constant whining on here, all that is being talked about is more of the same of the last three years.
Now, it has long been my position that Ukraine should stop fighting when Ukraine wants to stop fighting. But the very controlled aid it has been getting is about to become further restricted. So Zelensky must navigate within those constraints and I have no doubt that he will and a deal will be done.
Sod those WASPI women, it is surely the United faithful that need some compensation and consideration for unexpected and brutal disappointments. £20k a head seems light for the trauma we have had to endure. This is beyond depressing and I am getting beyond depressed. Help.
Why don’t the young in this country have some compensation for giving up our lives to protect the elderly from Covid
Giving up your lives implies you died, yet here you are. The reality was that lockdown affected everybody. We all gave up our lives (sic). What do you want in return? I don’t think we need to link Covid to the housing crisis. And you can and many are, looking at ending the farce of the triple lock. But if you feel more is needed maybe it’s time to go into politics and make things happen? Have you thought of it? You have the passion.
You clearly don’t know me at all if you think politics is my passion.
Only know you from what you post on here, as with all of pb. But it’s a politics (and betting, of course) website, so you must have a passing fancy for the subject.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
A good deal is ideal, but no deal is better than a bad deal.
And the only way to get a good deal is to be prepared to accept walking away with no deal.
You should have learnt that lesson five years ago.
It's great fun playing with the lives of thousands of people you don't know, isn't it.
He's not playing with anything, this same argument was made 3 years ago for crying out loud. For one thing advising Ukraine to concede its territory is also playing with the lives of thousands by submitting them to Russian rule forever. But more fundamentally it's deferring to whether Ukraine and its people feel the cost of continuing is worth it and supporting them if they do.
Reasonable people may differ about that position, but the 'playing with lives' argument is as silly as the other one from 3 years ago 'hurr hurr, I don't see you going on the front line'.
There is no plan anywhere to do what the PB Ukraine ultras want and are advocating.
Despite the constant whining on here, all that is being talked about is more of the same of the last three years.
Now, it has long been my position that Ukraine should stop fighting when Ukraine wants to stop fighting. But the very controlled aid it has been getting is about to become further restricted. So Zelensky must navigate within those constraints and I have no doubt that he will and a deal will be done.
More of the same is the right thing to do.
The UK alone is richer than Russia.
The UK and Europe and other assorted allies are considerably wealthier than Russia. We can continue more of the same with or without America.
US security guarantees are needed for any peace deal. Trump won't give them and even if he did they wouldn't be believed. Conundrum.
Even now people don't seem to have accepted that the US is out of the picture. The US can't offer us anything we would need to rely on, and may in time, which could be short, even turn into a direct adversary.
I hope that all these meetings and statements are playing for time, and behind the scenes we are all preparing for much worse.
I think you are only seeing one part of the picture.
If the US is out, I can't see how Ukraine can be defended. In my limited understanding, production capacity of weapons is too low in Europe, and intelligence within Ukraine is too poor without USA. People also mention Starlink, though I know little about it's role in the conflict.
The US' vital strategic role is why, I think, Starmer is insisting against all evidence that the US is still a reliable ally. It's also why Mandelson is being particularly odious in his advice to Zelenskyy. They are trying to woo the USA back - I think they probably have to.
Europe needs to operate in the real world, however unpleasant that real world happens to be right now. Wholeheartedly agree about behind the scenes preparations, though.
Sounds as though he might be prioritising his Washington connections over representing his government.
Is that based on anything though? What indication is there he would be conducting his own foreign policy, rather than Starmer playing one role whilst Mandelson tries to match the tone in Washington?
Mandelson is trying to bridge an expanding gulf. As ambassador, that is what he is there for - rather than a career FO type.
I think the game now is to try and stop a complete American shut out of Ukraine, while bolstering European efforts. At least as Starmer and The Mandlebrot see it.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
Idiot
Clearly idiotic to suggest Putin will withdraw from Ukraine.
Anyone read this ? t looks rather good. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Horsepower-Race-Western-Development/dp/1911658506 Calum Douglas, 40, is a professional mechanical engineer and aviation historian. He accidentally became a writer after discovering that many of the technologies of the Formula-One motor racing engines he was involved with had in fact been concieved in the Second World War...
I have, and found it very interesting if - as it should rightly be - quite technical at times. But others on PB are more informed than I am. I think it was @Malmesbury who recommended it in the first place on here some years back (hence my reading it).
Edit: or am I confusing his recommendation with another book?
I bought a copy and found it stuffed full of interesting information, much of it technical, which I liked, but it was rather disjointed and needs a good edit tbh.
Some of the primary source stuff makes it very worthwhile. The German headship on chromium shortages for valves, the incredulity of Farnborough at the performance curves for a hypothetical P-51 with a Merlin (cruise speed especially)
Yes, yes. Could you not discuss books!? I buy and read all of these many great recommendations. I have a finite amount of space though. Please God invent the infinite bookshelf! I guess Amazon and others did, but it's not the same.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
Lord Mandelson has called on Ukraine to unilaterallly call a ceasefire.
Anyone read this ? t looks rather good. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Horsepower-Race-Western-Development/dp/1911658506 Calum Douglas, 40, is a professional mechanical engineer and aviation historian. He accidentally became a writer after discovering that many of the technologies of the Formula-One motor racing engines he was involved with had in fact been concieved in the Second World War...
Follow him on twitter, he knows his stuff I think.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
Idiot
You're an idiot if you think it is in the Ukrainians' interest to agree a ceasefire when 30% of their country is still occupied and the enemy are resorting to donkeys to supply the front line, allowing them to regroup and rearm. You fight wars to win. The correct thing to do is to continue grinding Russia into the dirt.
Lord Mandelson has called on them to call one unilaterally.
So does PB think that Starmer's announcement that the UK will work "with France and others" on a plan to stop the fighting will involve a complete withdrawal of Russian forces to 2014 lines.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
Idiot
You're an idiot if you think it is in the Ukrainians' interest to agree a ceasefire when 30% of their country is still occupied and the enemy are resorting to donkeys to supply the front line, allowing them to regroup and rearm. You fight wars to win. The correct thing to do is to continue grinding Russia into the dirt.
Lord Mandelson has called on them to call one unilaterally.
While the Prime Minister has said the exact opposite.
Either Mandelson has gone completely off script, or they're playing a good cop, bad cop routine to try to manage Trump.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
May be we can work to the internationally accepted definition of “genocide” rather than the pretendy straw man made up by a Russian sympathising conspiracy theorist such as yourself?
Maybe you could actually READ you daft fuckwit - I was asking for John Lilburne's explanation of his supposition that hundreds of thousands would be killed if Ukraine surrendered. Genocide wasn't mentioned.
It was in the other post line to which you originally replied on. But of course truth doesn’t matter to you. Just your master’s bidding.
This conversation is showing you up to be a complete loon. I questioned a claim that Putin would slaughter hundreds of thousands post-"surrender". Now I am apparently twisting the meaning of genocide by using the frames of reference given in the original post?
As for 'my master's bidding' - I don't have a master, and that allows me to speak as I find. Perhaps you should think about who has benefitted you, and how that has informed your own viewpoint, because your above post reads like classic projection to me.
The original post that I replied to - and where you responded to me - talked about genocide and you responded with a straw man on 200,000+ deaths
I know that you have consistently parroted Russian propaganda lines from MH17 onward. But I forget you are a truth seeker who treats all statements by western governments with scepticism. And yet, somehow, you always end up sharing the same position as the Russians.
But you’re right. I’ve no evidence that you are paid by the Russians. May be you are just a fool instead.
Dear God, This was the post I replied to:
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
200,000+ is the minimum number that that comment could have been referring to. So it wasn't any kind of 'straw man' - it was a conservative summation of the statement I took issue with.
Did you read the Wikipedia article I posted? Or do you regard it as anti-Russian propaganda?
No, sorry, I was too busy defending myself from accusations of redefining genocide and making straw men for numbers that you had put forward. I can't see it in the thread, so if you wish to repost it, I'll read it.
Russians. It's what they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes. Along with a prediction that what the Russians will do to Ukrainian intelligentsia if they win will look rather like Katyń
Sure. The streak of brutality that runs through Russian culture predates the Soviets - it even predates Peter the Great. I know that. I am not actually defending the invasion (I never have) or suggesting that Putin has "peaceful intentions". I took took issue with your statement because I see Russia killing 200,000 as a consequence of a ceasefire (or Ukrainian surrender as you put it) as extremely unlikely.
Russia can already (and does) kill people within the Ukrainian territory it holds. I see peace as making such killings less likely, due to such events not being camouflaged by the fog of war. I can certainly see opponents of Russia being targeted, but I would also imagine that they would be allowed to depart Russian-held territory as part of the peace deal (in exchange for those loyal to Russia being permitted to leave Ukrainian-held territory). So all in all, I see less Ukrainian people dying at the hands of Russia as a result of a peace deal, rather than more.
I do not think you can grind Russia into the dirt.
The Ukrainians already have, with a GDP per capita of 5000 USD.
We need to rid ourselves of this inferiority complex. If we increased our defence spending to only 4% of GDP our military spending would match Russia's. UK + Germany + France is already more than double that.
So does PB think that Starmer's announcement that the UK will work "with France and others" on a plan to stop the fighting will involve a complete withdrawal of Russian forces to 2014 lines.
Farage said the west intimidated Putin into invading. Why would he say that if he didn’t support Putin?
Because he is a muppet?
You can say many things about Farage, but the idea he is casual with his words doesn't stand much scrutiny.
Think the worst of Farage and you won't go far wrong.
I don't over analyse Farage. That word that rhymes with James Hunt covers all eventualities. Farage is a ...
If Farage wanted to tell us that Putin is a wicked war criminal, Mr Z is a hero, Trump is sub-optimal and has chosen his friends unwisely, and Starmer has played a difficult hand well this week in times when patriotic parties in the UK unite over essentials I am sure he can find the words. He hasn't.
He will say that just as soon as he can find a way of linking all that to immigration.
Farage doesn't possess Johnson's talent for inconsistency and disloyalty. Johnson would betray Trump in a heartbeat (as Jenrick has) and claim he never praised Trump in the first place( much like Trump.). Farage is far more loyal and appears unable to condemn his orange ally.
Farage lacks the subtlety Starmer has shown. Sir K keeps saying that he is sure Trump is onside and all that, but we all know perfectly well he is setting Trump tests and giving him a chance of exits from his own duplicity, and is also developing the best possible plan (which would of course be tragically sub-optimal) for if Trump proves as perfidious as he appears.
Are we sure Starmer possesses such Machiavellian sophistication?
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
A good deal is ideal, but no deal is better than a bad deal.
And the only way to get a good deal is to be prepared to accept walking away with no deal.
You should have learnt that lesson five years ago.
It's great fun playing with the lives of thousands of people you don't know, isn't it.
He's not playing with anything, this same argument was made 3 years ago for crying out loud. For one thing advising Ukraine to concede its territory is also playing with the lives of thousands by submitting them to Russian rule forever. But more fundamentally it's deferring to whether Ukraine and its people feel the cost of continuing is worth it and supporting them if they do.
Reasonable people may differ about that position, but the 'playing with lives' argument is as silly as the other one from 3 years ago 'hurr hurr, I don't see you going on the front line'.
There is no plan anywhere to do what the PB Ukraine ultras want and are advocating.
Despite the constant whining on here, all that is being talked about is more of the same of the last three years.
Now, it has long been my position that Ukraine should stop fighting when Ukraine wants to stop fighting. But the very controlled aid it has been getting is about to become further restricted. So Zelensky must navigate within those constraints and I have no doubt that he will and a deal will be done.
More of the same is the right thing to do.
The UK alone is richer than Russia.
The UK and Europe and other assorted allies are considerably wealthier than Russia. We can continue more of the same with or without America.
So what do we think Starmer's plan will be. Invasion of Russia or ceasefire somewhere along today's positions.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
May be we can work to the internationally accepted definition of “genocide” rather than the pretendy straw man made up by a Russian sympathising conspiracy theorist such as yourself?
Maybe you could actually READ you daft fuckwit - I was asking for John Lilburne's explanation of his supposition that hundreds of thousands would be killed if Ukraine surrendered. Genocide wasn't mentioned.
It was in the other post line to which you originally replied on. But of course truth doesn’t matter to you. Just your master’s bidding.
This conversation is showing you up to be a complete loon. I questioned a claim that Putin would slaughter hundreds of thousands post-"surrender". Now I am apparently twisting the meaning of genocide by using the frames of reference given in the original post?
As for 'my master's bidding' - I don't have a master, and that allows me to speak as I find. Perhaps you should think about who has benefitted you, and how that has informed your own viewpoint, because your above post reads like classic projection to me.
The original post that I replied to - and where you responded to me - talked about genocide and you responded with a straw man on 200,000+ deaths
I know that you have consistently parroted Russian propaganda lines from MH17 onward. But I forget you are a truth seeker who treats all statements by western governments with scepticism. And yet, somehow, you always end up sharing the same position as the Russians.
But you’re right. I’ve no evidence that you are paid by the Russians. May be you are just a fool instead.
Dear God, This was the post I replied to:
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
200,000+ is the minimum number that that comment could have been referring to. So it wasn't any kind of 'straw man' - it was a conservative summation of the statement I took issue with.
Did you read the Wikipedia article I posted? Or do you regard it as anti-Russian propaganda?
No, sorry, I was too busy defending myself from accusations of redefining genocide and making straw men for numbers that you had put forward. I can't see it in the thread, so if you wish to repost it, I'll read it.
Russians. It's what they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes. Along with a prediction that what the Russians will do to Ukrainian intelligentsia if they win will look rather like Katyń
Sure. The streak of brutality that runs through Russian culture predates the Soviets - it even predates Peter the Great. I know that. I am not actually defending the invasion (I never have) or suggesting that Putin has "peaceful intentions". I took took issue with your statement because I see Russia killing 200,000 as a consequence of a ceasefire (or Ukrainian surrender as you put it) as extremely unlikely.
Russia can already (and does) kill people within the Ukrainian territory it holds. I see peace as making such killings less likely, due to such events not being camouflaged by the fog of war. I can certainly see opponents of Russia being targeted, but I would also imagine that they would be allowed to depart Russian-held territory as part of the peace deal (in exchange for those loyal to Russia being permitted to leave Ukrainian-held territory). So all in all, I see less Ukrainian people dying at the hands of Russia as a result of a peace deal, rather than more.
Hundreds of thousands is 100k+ not 200k plus. Even if you wanted to be pedantic about the plural, it begins at 100,001 and not 200,000.
And 100k or 200k+ dying as a result of a Russian victory is entirely plausible given what we've seen and the mass graves that have followed Russian occupation elsewhere.
It’s a ghastly subject but I think I’d say if it’s hundreds of thousands then it must be more than one hundred thousands, so I think it is 200,000+. Otherwise it would be more than a 100,000. I guess the question is what would happen if the war ended with Ukraine surrendering. The deaths to now were under condition of war, and frankly even the best armies commit atrocities. Yes, even the glorious American, Canadian, Australian and British in WW2, fighting the very essence of evil, sometimes went too far, or executed prisoners etc. If Russia won by just grinding forward then you can imagine many, many more ancillary deaths. Bu5 if it’s a surrender? I’m not so sure.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
A good deal is ideal, but no deal is better than a bad deal.
And the only way to get a good deal is to be prepared to accept walking away with no deal.
You should have learnt that lesson five years ago.
It's great fun playing with the lives of thousands of people you don't know, isn't it.
He's not playing with anything, this same argument was made 3 years ago for crying out loud. For one thing advising Ukraine to concede its territory is also playing with the lives of thousands by submitting them to Russian rule forever. But more fundamentally it's deferring to whether Ukraine and its people feel the cost of continuing is worth it and supporting them if they do.
Reasonable people may differ about that position, but the 'playing with lives' argument is as silly as the other one from 3 years ago 'hurr hurr, I don't see you going on the front line'.
There is no plan anywhere to do what the PB Ukraine ultras want and are advocating.
Despite the constant whining on here, all that is being talked about is more of the same of the last three years.
Now, it has long been my position that Ukraine should stop fighting when Ukraine wants to stop fighting. But the very controlled aid it has been getting is about to become further restricted. So Zelensky must navigate within those constraints and I have no doubt that he will and a deal will be done.
My position is (and always has been) that Ukraine are defending against an immoral invasion and it is their decision (and their decision only) whether they fight back.
Separately, it is also my position that we should support (with money and weapons at the very least) whatever decision Ukraine makes. Not purely for selfless moral reasons, but also because having the most battle hardened land army in Europe as an ally seems beneficial to me.
Sorry if already posted, but this is a quite interesting piece of ChatGPT psychology on the Trump/Zelensky disaster. That's what happens when you meet a narcissistic psychopath and his sidekick:
Conclusion Trump and his team employed the full spectrum of abusive tactics: gaslighting, victim-blaming, coercion into gratitude, and manipulation of the concepts of peace and diplomacy. This was not a negotiation—it was an attempt to force Zelensky into accepting terms beneficial to the US but potentially fatal for Ukraine. 1. Blaming the victim for their own situation Trump explicitly tells Zelensky: “You have allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.” This is classic abuser rhetoric—blaming the victim for their suffering. 2. Pressure and coercion into ‘gratitude’ Vance demands that Zelensky say “thank you.” This is an extremely toxic tactic—forcing the victim to express gratitude for the help they desperately need, only to later accuse them of ingratitude if they attempt to assert their rights. 3. Manipulating the concept of ‘peace’ Trump claims that Zelensky is “not ready for peace.” However, what he actually means is Ukraine’s capitulation. This is a classic manipulation technique—substituting the idea of a just peace with the notion of surrender. 4. Refusing to acknowledge the reality of war Trump repeatedly insists that Zelensky has “no cards to play” and that “without us, you have nothing.” This is yet another abusive tactic—undermining the victim’s efforts by asserting that they are powerless without the mercy of their ‘saviour.’ 5. Devaluing the victims of war “If you get a ceasefire, you must accept it so that bullets stop flying and your people stop dying,” Trump says. Yet, he ignores the fact that a ceasefire without guarantees is merely an opportunity for Russia to strike again. 6. Dominance tactics Trump constantly interrupts Zelensky, cutting him off: “No, no, you’ve already said enough,” This is deliberate psychological pressure designed to establish a hierarchy in which Zelensky is the subordinate. 7. Forcing capitulation under the guise of ‘diplomacy’ Vance asserts that “the path to peace lies through diplomacy.” This is a classic strategy where the aggressor is given the opportunity to continue their aggression unchallenged. 8. Projection and distortion of reality Trump declares: “You are playing with the lives of millions of people.” Yet, in reality, it is he who is doing exactly that—shifting responsibility onto Zelensky. 9. Creating the illusion that Ukraine ‘owes’ the US Yes, the US is assisting Ukraine, but presenting this aid as “you must obey, or you will receive nothing” is not a partnership—it is financial and military coercion. 10. Undermining Ukraine’s resistance Trump states that “if it weren’t for our weapons, this war would have ended in two weeks.” This is an attempt to erase Ukraine’s achievements and portray its efforts as entirely dependent on US support.
ChatGPT writes what you want it to write.
It's an interesting information gathering and summary tool (as long as it’s caveated for accuracy, as it does itself). It should not be used to draw conclusions that it's not capable of drawing.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
Yes indeed. The war needs to continue. More Russian soldiers need to die. Let's see how much more they can take. They can easily stop the war by withdrawing their forces
Idiot
You're an idiot if you think it is in the Ukrainians' interest to agree a ceasefire when 30% of their country is still occupied and the enemy are resorting to donkeys to supply the front line, allowing them to regroup and rearm. You fight wars to win. The correct thing to do is to continue grinding Russia into the dirt.
Anyone read this ? t looks rather good. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Horsepower-Race-Western-Development/dp/1911658506 Calum Douglas, 40, is a professional mechanical engineer and aviation historian. He accidentally became a writer after discovering that many of the technologies of the Formula-One motor racing engines he was involved with had in fact been concieved in the Second World War...
I have, and found it very interesting if - as it should rightly be - quite technical at times. But others on PB are more informed than I am. I think it was @Malmesbury who recommended it in the first place on here some years back (hence my reading it).
Edit: or am I confusing his recommendation with another book?
I bought a copy and found it stuffed full of interesting information, much of it technical, which I liked, but it was rather disjointed and needs a good edit tbh.
Some of the primary source stuff makes it very worthwhile. The German headship on chromium shortages for valves, the incredulity of Farnborough at the performance curves for a hypothetical P-51 with a Merlin (cruise speed especially)
Yes, yes. Could you not discuss books!? I buy and read all of these many great recommendations. I have a finite amount of space though. Please God invent the infinite bookshelf! I guess Amazon and others did, but it's not the same.
There is such a thing as an infinite bookshelf. It's called a "library"
Sorry if already posted, but this is a quite interesting piece of ChatGPT psychology on the Trump/Zelensky disaster. That's what happens when you meet a narcissistic psychopath and his sidekick:
Conclusion Trump and his team employed the full spectrum of abusive tactics: gaslighting, victim-blaming, coercion into gratitude, and manipulation of the concepts of peace and diplomacy. This was not a negotiation—it was an attempt to force Zelensky into accepting terms beneficial to the US but potentially fatal for Ukraine. 1. Blaming the victim for their own situation Trump explicitly tells Zelensky: “You have allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.” This is classic abuser rhetoric—blaming the victim for their suffering. 2. Pressure and coercion into ‘gratitude’ Vance demands that Zelensky say “thank you.” This is an extremely toxic tactic—forcing the victim to express gratitude for the help they desperately need, only to later accuse them of ingratitude if they attempt to assert their rights. 3. Manipulating the concept of ‘peace’ Trump claims that Zelensky is “not ready for peace.” However, what he actually means is Ukraine’s capitulation. This is a classic manipulation technique—substituting the idea of a just peace with the notion of surrender. 4. Refusing to acknowledge the reality of war Trump repeatedly insists that Zelensky has “no cards to play” and that “without us, you have nothing.” This is yet another abusive tactic—undermining the victim’s efforts by asserting that they are powerless without the mercy of their ‘saviour.’ 5. Devaluing the victims of war “If you get a ceasefire, you must accept it so that bullets stop flying and your people stop dying,” Trump says. Yet, he ignores the fact that a ceasefire without guarantees is merely an opportunity for Russia to strike again. 6. Dominance tactics Trump constantly interrupts Zelensky, cutting him off: “No, no, you’ve already said enough,” This is deliberate psychological pressure designed to establish a hierarchy in which Zelensky is the subordinate. 7. Forcing capitulation under the guise of ‘diplomacy’ Vance asserts that “the path to peace lies through diplomacy.” This is a classic strategy where the aggressor is given the opportunity to continue their aggression unchallenged. 8. Projection and distortion of reality Trump declares: “You are playing with the lives of millions of people.” Yet, in reality, it is he who is doing exactly that—shifting responsibility onto Zelensky. 9. Creating the illusion that Ukraine ‘owes’ the US Yes, the US is assisting Ukraine, but presenting this aid as “you must obey, or you will receive nothing” is not a partnership—it is financial and military coercion. 10. Undermining Ukraine’s resistance Trump states that “if it weren’t for our weapons, this war would have ended in two weeks.” This is an attempt to erase Ukraine’s achievements and portray its efforts as entirely dependent on US support.
ChatGPT writes what you want it to write.
It's an interesting information gathering and summary tool (as long as it’s caveated for accuracy, as it does itself). It should not be used to draw conclusions that it's not capable of drawing.
As an experiment, why don’t you prime ChatGPT to give the other side of the argument. It’ll be an interesting, and probably slightly unsettling, example.
So as I see it when there is no deal and no ceasefire then PB en masse will be high fiving and celebrating a huge victory.
(PS: there will be a deal.)
A good deal is ideal, but no deal is better than a bad deal.
And the only way to get a good deal is to be prepared to accept walking away with no deal.
You should have learnt that lesson five years ago.
It's great fun playing with the lives of thousands of people you don't know, isn't it.
He's not playing with anything, this same argument was made 3 years ago for crying out loud. For one thing advising Ukraine to concede its territory is also playing with the lives of thousands by submitting them to Russian rule forever. But more fundamentally it's deferring to whether Ukraine and its people feel the cost of continuing is worth it and supporting them if they do.
Reasonable people may differ about that position, but the 'playing with lives' argument is as silly as the other one from 3 years ago 'hurr hurr, I don't see you going on the front line'.
There is no plan anywhere to do what the PB Ukraine ultras want and are advocating.
Despite the constant whining on here, all that is being talked about is more of the same of the last three years.
Now, it has long been my position that Ukraine should stop fighting when Ukraine wants to stop fighting. But the very controlled aid it has been getting is about to become further restricted. So Zelensky must navigate within those constraints and I have no doubt that he will and a deal will be done.
My position is (and always has been) that Ukraine are defending against an immoral invasion and it is their decision (and their decision only) whether they fight back.
Separately, it is also my position that we should support (with money and weapons at the very least) whatever decision Ukraine makes. Not purely for selfless moral reasons, but also because having the most battle hardened land army in Europe as an ally seems beneficial to me.
Get real. Ukraine wants us to bomb Russia and send the troops in but for some unaccountable reason we have not done that over the past three years. Do you suppose that Starmer's plan will change that strategy.
Anyone read this ? t looks rather good. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Horsepower-Race-Western-Development/dp/1911658506 Calum Douglas, 40, is a professional mechanical engineer and aviation historian. He accidentally became a writer after discovering that many of the technologies of the Formula-One motor racing engines he was involved with had in fact been concieved in the Second World War...
My sister got me a copy for my birthday last year. It's excellent, basically the definitive work on second world war era piston engines. The author did a lot of original research, so there's information you won't find anywhere else. It does necessarily get quite technical, thus can be a bit dense for the casual reader.
Comments
This whole thing is because Trump wants any deal, and has the power to force one. As unpalatable as most of us would find many deals, Ukraine and Zelensky might have signed one already through limited options if not for Vance and Trump also wanting to flex in front of the cameras a bit too.
https://vt.co/news/us/jd-vance-and-family-reportedly-moved-to-undisclosed-location-as-protesters-swarm-skiing-trip
https://meidasnews.com/news/book-ban-trump-floats-law-to-target-books-critical-of-him
On the other hand, I can't see Putin accepting terms that see territory freezing at current conflict lines but with NATO members in Ukraine with US support.
So I suspect that means there will be no ceasefire in the foreseeable future.
Europe and Zelensky are reminding him that people other than Putin and himself have agency too.
Is he self-aware enough to realise that he and America would be utterly humiliated if the war continued and Putin was defeated by Ukraine and the coalition of the willing without America?
Is he self-aware enough to grasp the off-ramp that Starmer is providing?
He's certainly duplicitous enough to do so if he wanted to. And to claim with a straight face he was happily supporting Ukraine all along.
t looks rather good.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Horsepower-Race-Western-Development/dp/1911658506
Calum Douglas, 40, is a professional mechanical engineer and aviation historian. He accidentally became a writer after discovering that many of the technologies of the Formula-One motor racing engines he was involved with had in fact been concieved in the Second World War...
He may not be able to enforce any deal, that is what he may have learned, but I think he can still force some deal - that people are talking about a deal so much is indeed down to him.
As Zelensky, Starmer and the rest of non-USA NATO have shown so clearly today.
How he handles that is going to be interesting to see. It could go any way really.
He certainly won't like the impudence of not getting his way, but if he sees the writing on the wall he might do the right thing for the wrong reason of not wanting to be shown up, and then claim with a straight face that its what he wanted all along.
We now need Badenoch to come out and say a Conservative Party led by her would under no circumstances support a minority Reform Government.
In Trump's 1984 world if he says we are at war with Eastasia then we have always been at war with Eastasia.
No idea if he will, but the likes of MTG etc will be slavishly following the new line if it does change.
Most of us to the left of centre are outraged that Starmer rewarded a seditious traitor, an adjudicated rapist, a felon and quite possibly a Russian asset with a second State visit. I suspect Starmer was forced to swallow his own vomit as he read out the offending paragraph (can't Trump read?). I understand, although I wish I didn't, that massaging Trump's ego can achieve results due entirely to his vanity. I suppose it was unfortunately worth a shot.
What was you ex MP friend from Norfolk's excuse for metaphorically felating that great big orange dick?
Edit: or am I confusing his recommendation with another book?
Quite what the rest of he world makes of all this I don't know. Most of the world isn't involved.
"Mandelson says Zelenskyy must give his “unequivocal backing” to Trump’s peace plan"
https://bsky.app/profile/noahbarkin.bsky.social/post/3ljfsnpomp22w
(PS: there will be a deal.)
And the only way to get a good deal is to be prepared to accept walking away with no deal.
You should have learnt that lesson five years ago.
If they cannot live with what they are being told to accept by the USA then again I have no issue with supporting them as much as we can in doing so.
Plus, Musk, Vance et al's commitment to 'free speech' is not particularly deep. They'll always find reasons to ban things they don't like.
Russia can already (and does) kill people within the Ukrainian territory it holds. I see peace as making such killings less likely, due to such events not being camouflaged by the fog of war. I can certainly see opponents of Russia being targeted, but I would also imagine that they would be allowed to depart Russian-held territory as part of the peace deal (in exchange for those loyal to Russia being permitted to leave Ukrainian-held territory). So all in all, I see less Ukrainian people dying at the hands of Russia as a result of a peace deal, rather than more.
I hope that all these meetings and statements are playing for time, and behind the scenes we are all preparing for much worse.
Conclusion
Trump and his team employed the full spectrum of abusive tactics: gaslighting, victim-blaming, coercion into gratitude, and manipulation of the concepts of peace and diplomacy. This was not a negotiation—it was an attempt to force Zelensky into accepting terms beneficial to the US but potentially fatal for Ukraine.
1. Blaming the victim for their own situation
Trump explicitly tells Zelensky: “You have allowed yourself to be in a very bad position.” This is classic abuser rhetoric—blaming the victim for their suffering.
2. Pressure and coercion into ‘gratitude’
Vance demands that Zelensky say “thank you.” This is an extremely toxic tactic—forcing the victim to express gratitude for the help they desperately need, only to later accuse them of ingratitude if they attempt to assert their rights.
3. Manipulating the concept of ‘peace’
Trump claims that Zelensky is “not ready for peace.” However, what he actually means is Ukraine’s capitulation. This is a classic manipulation technique—substituting the idea of a just peace with the notion of surrender.
4. Refusing to acknowledge the reality of war
Trump repeatedly insists that Zelensky has “no cards to play” and that “without us, you have nothing.” This is yet another abusive tactic—undermining the victim’s efforts by asserting that they are powerless without the mercy of their ‘saviour.’
5. Devaluing the victims of war
“If you get a ceasefire, you must accept it so that bullets stop flying and your people stop dying,” Trump says. Yet, he ignores the fact that a ceasefire without guarantees is merely an opportunity for Russia to strike again.
6. Dominance tactics
Trump constantly interrupts Zelensky, cutting him off: “No, no, you’ve already said enough,” This is deliberate psychological pressure designed to establish a hierarchy in which Zelensky is the subordinate.
7. Forcing capitulation under the guise of ‘diplomacy’
Vance asserts that “the path to peace lies through diplomacy.” This is a classic strategy where the aggressor is given the opportunity to continue their aggression unchallenged.
8. Projection and distortion of reality
Trump declares: “You are playing with the lives of millions of people.” Yet, in reality, it is he who is doing exactly that—shifting responsibility onto Zelensky.
9. Creating the illusion that Ukraine ‘owes’ the US
Yes, the US is assisting Ukraine, but presenting this aid as “you must obey, or you will receive nothing” is not a partnership—it is financial and military coercion.
10. Undermining Ukraine’s resistance
Trump states that “if it weren’t for our weapons, this war would have ended in two weeks.” This is an attempt to erase Ukraine’s achievements and portray its efforts as entirely dependent on US support.
Its funny how you wouldn't accept a temporary cessation of liberty to save lives for Covid but you see a permanent cessation of liberty under a dictator as a price worth paying to save lives in war.
That people are dying is not a reason to end war, its a reason to press on for victory.
Reasonable people may differ about that position, but the 'playing with lives' argument is as silly as the other one from 3 years ago 'hurr hurr, I don't see you going on the front line'.
https://x.com/paulembery/status/1896244722064318617?s=61
And 100k or 200k+ dying as a result of a Russian victory is entirely plausible given what we've seen and the mass graves that have followed Russian occupation elsewhere.
https://xcancel.com/dave43law/status/1894756748629610736
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ng-interactive/2025/mar/02/tesla-owners-selling-musk
PBers come through.
It’s not a flowing story like Warrior to Dreadnought. There are chunks missing from the sleeve valve story, for example. And why the Centaurus was so delayed…
Despite the constant whining on here, all that is being talked about is more of the same of the last three years.
Now, it has long been my position that Ukraine should stop fighting when Ukraine wants to stop fighting. But the very controlled aid it has been getting is about to become further restricted. So Zelensky must navigate within those constraints and I have no doubt that he will and a deal will be done.
The UK alone is richer than Russia.
The UK and Europe and other assorted allies are considerably wealthier than Russia. We can continue more of the same with or without America.
If the US is out, I can't see how Ukraine can be defended. In my limited understanding, production capacity of weapons is too low in Europe, and intelligence within Ukraine is too poor without USA. People also mention Starlink, though I know little about it's role in the conflict.
The US' vital strategic role is why, I think, Starmer is insisting against all evidence that the US is still a reliable ally. It's also why Mandelson is being particularly odious in his advice to Zelenskyy. They are trying to woo the USA back - I think they probably have to.
Europe needs to operate in the real world, however unpleasant that real world happens to be right now. Wholeheartedly agree about behind the scenes preparations, though.
I think the game now is to try and stop a complete American shut out of Ukraine, while bolstering European efforts. At least as Starmer and The Mandlebrot see it.
Either Mandelson has gone completely off script, or they're playing a good cop, bad cop routine to try to manage Trump.
We need to rid ourselves of this inferiority complex. If we increased our defence spending to only 4% of GDP our military spending would match Russia's. UK + Germany + France is already more than double that.
Welcome if true.
I guess the question is what would happen if the war ended with Ukraine surrendering. The deaths to now were under condition of war, and frankly even the best armies commit atrocities. Yes, even the glorious American, Canadian, Australian and British in WW2, fighting the very essence of evil, sometimes went too far, or executed prisoners etc. If Russia won by just grinding forward then you can imagine many, many more ancillary deaths. Bu5 if it’s a surrender? I’m not so sure.
Separately, it is also my position that we should support (with money and weapons at the very least) whatever decision Ukraine makes. Not purely for selfless moral reasons, but also because having the most battle hardened land army in Europe as an ally seems beneficial to me.
It's an interesting information gathering and summary tool (as long as it’s caveated for accuracy, as it does itself). It should not be used to draw conclusions that it's not capable of drawing.
Oh dear. How sad etc etc….
https://x.com/kent_online/status/1896155545981337927?s=61
Because they are quite good cars.* And after all, nobody stops buying Fords because Henry Ford was a Nazi sympathiser who also worked with Stalin.
*Admittedly there are some pretty unpleasant people driving them.