Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
7 minutes ago, Sampson said:

They’re nuts. Even the Tories are backing Starmer over the weekend. It actually felt a bit like a wartime coalition with Labour and Conservatives realising the country’s defence is more important than squabbling. But Farage is still going on national radio, refusing to call out Putin, backing Trump and saying he doesn’t like Ukraine as a country. 
 

Don’t know how people see him as a “man of the people”. All Farage ever does is talk Britain and Europe down to try and sew division. 

"man of [a very particular subset of] the people"

  • Like 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

The UK, at least, could start with obligatory vaccination checks for some diseases on all US citizens, tourists or otherwise, coming into the country.

 

Sending a valid message wrt RFK-style ignorance-of-public-health bollocks.

We don’t want to lose American tourism - we need every penny we can get. We’d be better taxing people who want to go there on holiday (more than we already do) 

Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Bilo said:

Labour need to go in hard on this. Reform need to be exposed as the unpatriotic, unprincipled rabble of grifting shysters they are. 

Even Pritti Patel seems to be calling him out tbf to someone whose politics I otherwise strongly dislike. It shouldn’t matter if your left right or centre on this, it’s clear Starmer is doing the right thing. The defence of the UK and its neighbours should always be the most important thing for the government. 
 

 

image.png

Edited by Sampson
  • Like 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

We don’t want to lose American tourism - we need every penny we can get. We’d be better taxing people who want to go there on holiday (more than we already do) 

Could do both tbh.

 

I think presenting it as a public health matteer is not exactly something the Americans could argue with.

Posted

A welcome - if macabre - corollary of this week is that it does indeed show Reform up. This is not an issue they can really win on and it's hitting them hard.

  • Like 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, Bilo said:

Farage is showing why he's nowhere near PM material this week. He'd throw Ukraine to the wolves just for a complimentary tweet from Donny Bonespurs. 

 

Starmer, by contrast, has looked like an actual statesman this week. Front and centre of the European leaders and looking I've the most important leader in the continent as a bridge between the EU and the US, exploiting Trump’s Anglophilia. 

Starmer is showing him up. Farage made a big thing about being his mate and getting our way yet Starmer has proven that to be crap.

  • Like 3
Posted
12 hours ago, Lionator said:

Yup, if the American economy continues to grow the way it has been for the past year, it’s going to be President Vance or Ivanka. 


That’s a big ‘IF’ by the looks of it - Trump’s managed to tank it inside a month!

 

 

Posted
On 02/03/2025 at 20:42, Lionator said:

They felt stabbed in the back with the change in direction on the Minsk agreements, despite being guilty of breaking them themselves. A lot of people tend to blame Putin but this is a sickness through Russian political society, Putin is just a manipulator of common viewpoints. I think there’s an opportunity for the US and Russia to agree something with Ukraine at the table of course. The frothing of wanting to fight Russians is once again insane. 


I’ve been on this planet long enough to recall Russia having an excuse for everything they do… if they admit to doing it.

 

Whatever they claim are the reasons, you can be sure the actions were something they wanted to do regardless.

 

In the context of Ukraine, Crimea is strategically important due to its warm water port - Russia didn’t have one under its previous borders.

 

The land now under occupation in Ukraine performs a firm land bridge from Russia to Crimea - making this Russian incursion strategically useful.

 

So whilst yes, NATO expanding East bad; invading your closest neighbour is not exactly the best way to complain against that.

Posted
3 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:


I’ve been on this planet long enough to recall Russia having an excuse for everything they do… if they admit to doing it.

 

Whatever they claim are the reasons, you can be sure the actions were something they wanted to do regardless.

 

In the context of Ukraine, Crimea is strategically important due to its warm water port - Russia didn’t have one under its previous borders.

 

The land now under occupation in Ukraine performs a firm land bridge from Russia to Crimea - making this Russian incursion strategically useful.

 

So whilst yes, NATO expanding East bad; invading your closest neighbour is not exactly the best way to complain against that.

Since the invasion both Sweden and Finland joined NATO to protect themselves from Russia. Russias actions have been to reduce the troop numbers on those borders and send them to Ukraine.

 

This suggests that they are less concerned by an attack from those countries now that they are in NATO than before.

  • Like 3
Posted
32 minutes ago, kenny said:

Since the invasion both Sweden and Finland joined NATO to protect themselves from Russia. Russias actions have been to reduce the troop numbers on those borders and send them to Ukraine.

 

This suggests that they are less concerned by an attack from those countries now that they are in NATO than before.

Who would be seriously concerned about an attack from Finland or Sweden ? 

Posted
6 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Who would be seriously concerned about an attack from Finland or Sweden ? 

Putin? He has had significant troops stationed on that border for years. It took NATO membership for him to have the confidence to move them.

 

Incidentally Sweden and Finland appear to have a decent inventory of military kit. Finland has a reserve of 800k soldiers. I guess when your neighbour is Russia it focuses the mind towards defence.

  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Who would be seriously concerned about an attack from Finland or Sweden ? 

It’s more about the excuse of the invasion “more nato on our borders”. So pulling troops confirms that was just a lie, again. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

I get the impression he's treating his presidency like it's a reality TV series and a social media game. We talk about Leicester players being unprofessional, but this is a new level of that. It's really odd how he has to post on social media about everything, he has the loudest voice by default by being the leader of one of the most powerful countries, he doesn't need to do that. 

 

He's in his own bizarre bubble and he's dragging the world in it, and it's frightening.

Edited by fox_favourite
  • Like 4
Posted
3 hours ago, kenny said:

Putin? He has had significant troops stationed on that border for years. It took NATO membership for him to have the confidence to move them.

 

Incidentally Sweden and Finland appear to have a decent inventory of military kit. Finland has a reserve of 800k soldiers. I guess when your neighbour is Russia it focuses the mind towards defence.

I can imagine a highly capable 800k people as well. 

Posted (edited)

So done with America. Y'all can suck a fat $5 egg.

 

Except the city usa fans (although you are all still w@nkers) lol.

Edited by Jattdogg
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, fox_favourite said:

I can imagine a highly capable 800k people as well. 

Yes indeed, pretty much their whole country is aligned in the awareness of Russia as the danger to Finnish freedoms.  It even pushed them to fight against Russia and alongside Germany in WW2, as they saw Russia as the bigger threat.  They have huge reserve forces, good plans and a lot of weaponry.  When their membership of NATO was confirmed, a seriously uninformed retired general was on the news calling it out as more symbolic than anything, which was embarrassing as I was in Helsinki at the time with colleagues. They are rightly proud of their capabilities and determination to defend themselves.  Zero chance of a preemptive attack on Russia though.

Posted
22 minutes ago, Sly said:

So the USA has paused aid to Ukraine then. 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm convinced Trump doesn't care about peace, he wants Ukraine to lose. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Sly said:

So the USA has paused aid to Ukraine then. 

Again, Trump is just accelerating the inevitable process in a horrible and brutal way.

 

Even on Sunday with Starmer supposedly giving his Churchillian speech, he still went on about US security guarantees. The cold hard reality is the USA aren’t prepared to risk it all for Ukraine (and this is the same Biden) because Ukraine has little material benefit for them in the wider geopolitical scheme (unlike Taiwan but that’s a different story). 
 

Good article from yesterday https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/03/europe-trump-ukraine

 

Do I agree with it? No. Is it fair? No. But it is what it is, that’s why when things are ended on terms favourable to Russia, we need to ensure that all other European states defence spending is adequate so even if Putin has a 1% urge to do something, he would absolutely regret it. 

Edited by Lionator
  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...