General News

[Foxdiamond]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I emphatically agree.

 

Perhaps with that in mind, people might reconsider the feelings of gratitude they hold at what was simply an act of cut-throat business and the actors that drove it - especially so long after the fact.

 

I'm thankful the isolationism movement in US lost the argument. 

[Sampson]

37 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I'm thankful the isolationism movement in US lost the argument. 

Me too. Sadly it’s winning it again.

[Lionator]

British troops in Ukraine then! Thank god.

 

Especially when you hear Zelenskyy say that Russia is staging 150,000 troops in Belarus ready to attack Poland next year. We need to support Ukraine to stop them. Especially as the Mango Mussolini doesn’t think Russia wants to start a war with NATO. Idiot.

[SpacedX]

8 minutes ago, Lionator said:

British troops in Ukraine then! Thank god.

 

Especially when you hear Zelenskyy say that Russia is staging 150,000 troops in Belarus ready to attack Poland next year. We need to support Ukraine to stop them. Especially as the Mango Mussolini doesn’t think Russia wants to start a war with NATO. Idiot.

Russia is not going to "attack Poland next year". 

[jgtuk]

13 hours ago, Daggers said:

 

 

 

Tax golf. There's a policy I can get behind. And a 100% tax on the hideous golf clothes they wear.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20250214-from-scotland-to-california-the-rewilded-golf-courses-where-wildlife-thrives

[Zear0]

20 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

Russia is not going to "attack Poland next year". 

Also think it's unlikely, but now the US is simply playing lip service to it's NATO obligations, them making a dart at the Suwalki gap during Trump's presidency doesn't seem too far fetched. 

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, SpacedX said:

Russia is not going to "attack Poland next year". 

Why not?

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Why not?

Two reasons come to mind:

 

- if Russia can't conquer or subjugate Ukraine (though they've had military support from elsewhere), I'm not sure they can take on another country equally if not better prepared at a similar time.

 

- Poland is a NATO member, so Article 5 would be triggered, and though Trump is likely only paying lip service to NATO obligations, I'm not sure even he can ignore that without consequences.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

Also think it's unlikely, but now the US is simply playing lip service to it's NATO obligations, them making a dart at the Suwalki gap during Trump's presidency doesn't seem too far fetched. 

You can't exactly bang on about needing Greenland for national security and then let Russia expand west.

[izzymuzzet]

Moldova seems more likely. Not a NATO member, and Russia has been trying to increase its influence in the Eastern Balkans for years. They already occupy much of Kherson so this could enable them to put the squeeze on Odessa and control the Black Sea.

[Zear0]

2 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

You can't exactly bang on about needing Greenland for national security and then let Russia expand west.

I don't believe he gives a flip about security. He sees trade routes, minerals and oil. 

[leicsmac]

Trump: "he who saves his Country does not violate any law".

 

Nixon: "when the President does it, that means it's not illegal".

 

Any difference here?

[urban.spaceman]

48 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Trump: "he who saves his Country does not violate any law".

 

Nixon: "when the President does it, that means it's not illegal".

 

Any difference here?

David Frost isn't available for interviews?

[fox_up_north]

56 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

David Frost isn't available for interviews?

Just get Michael Sheen

[Lionator]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Trump: "he who saves his Country does not violate any law".

 

Nixon: "when the President does it, that means it's not illegal".

 

Any difference here?

It’s funny that presidents have gotten away with things much worse than Watergate. Nixon was generally one of the best presidents of the past 80 years and I think it’s weird to see him in the same context as Trump, which is terrible indictment on American politics. 

[SpacedX]

3 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Also think it's unlikely, but now the US is simply playing lip service to it's NATO obligations, them making a dart at the Suwalki gap during Trump's presidency doesn't seem too far fetched. 

I brought this precise point up in early in the Ukraine thread but more in terms of the vulnerability of the Baltic States if it was well defended by Russian forces. However, When Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago,  it sent shockwaves through neighbouring countries. The biggest war on the European continent since the end of the Second World War caused a complete re-evaluation of previous assumptions and strategies - particularly in Scandinavia and Sweden and Finland joining as member nations which was a massive own goal for the Kremlin. The accession of Finland to NATO also doubled the length of the alliance’s border with Russia. This has in the Kremlin’s own words forced Russia to take counter-measures to ensure its own security, tactically and strategically. I would suggest that increased exposure to a NATO member reduces the chances of any Russian attack on other NATO members bordering the Suwałki Gap which although sandwiched by Belarus and Kaliningrad, has nonetheless now lost its tactical significance.

[leicsmac]

49 minutes ago, Lionator said:

It’s funny that presidents have gotten away with things much worse than Watergate. Nixon was generally one of the best presidents of the past 80 years and I think it’s weird to see him in the same context as Trump, which is terrible indictment on American politics. 

Fair to say.

 

For instance, Nixon created and greenlit a federal agency dedicated to safeguarding the environment. Trump is bound and determined to destroy that agency, with all the associated consequences for the natural world.

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, Zear0 said:

I don't believe he gives a flip about security. He sees trade routes, minerals and oil. 

Absolutely, but he can't hide behind "security". His intention is obvious. Exploitation.

 

It's totally bizarre that Mr Electric Vehicles is in bed with him.

[Dunge]

It’s interesting to me that, after Starmer’s talked about sending troops to Ukraine as a post-deal peacekeeping force, other European countries are today queuing up to rule that out.

 

It’s one of those situations where if I was Starmer I’d be taking the approach of “If you have any better ideas then I’m all ears.”

[Foxdiamond]

25 minutes ago, Dunge said:

It’s interesting to me that, after Starmer’s talked about sending troops to Ukraine as a post-deal peacekeeping force, other European countries are today queuing up to rule that out.

 

It’s one of those situations where if I was Starmer I’d be taking the approach of “If you have any better ideas then I’m all ears.”

It is for United Nations to send peace keepers as blue helmets. 

[izzymuzzet]

3 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

It is for United Nations to send peace keepers as blue helmets. 

This would require agreement from the UN Security Council - of which Russia is a permanent member and therefore has a veto.

[Foxdiamond]

1 minute ago, izzymuzzet said:

This would require agreement from the UN Security Council - of which Russia is a permanent member and therefore has a veto.

Good point. Not sure if having our troops in Ukraine is the best idea though. 

[BKLFox]

EU (& best add UK for clarity) Not at the talks so let the US police any agreement 🤷‍♂️ 

 

 

Edited 17 February by BKLFox

[kenny]

1 hour ago, Foxdiamond said:

Good point. Not sure if having our troops in Ukraine is the best idea though. 

If Russia signs a peace agreement then it would be a very safe place for our troops to be I'm sure.

[Foxdiamond]

10 minutes ago, kenny said:

If Russia signs a peace agreement then it would be a very safe place for our troops to be I'm sure.

I recognise the irony there