General News

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

 

Summary from this morning’s developments about a UK / France peace plan.

 

Have to say, I think Starmer is playing some exemplary cricket with all of this.  

[blabyboy]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

This is the best analysis on it all that I’ve seen. 

 

 

It's an interesting viewpoint for sure, good read.

[blabyboy]

47 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

 

Summary from this morning’s developments about a UK / France peace plan.

 

Have to say, I think Starmer is playing some exemplary cricket with all of this.  

I think this really useful in smoking out Trump and Vance on the support question. Ultimately, if the 'willing' troops go on the ground, would the US back them up if there was aggression from Russia?

 

Although, I can well imagine Trump just smiles and says something akin to "Maybe we will, maybe we won't".

Edited 2 March 2025 by blabyboy

[Dunge]

I think putting the plan into 3 key points:

- Strong/Capable Ukraine

- European defence support

- US Backstop

is a good way to go. If nothing else it’s a base to run with and gives Trump scope for negotiation/concession to Russia/demand for minerals beyond that.

 

That’s not to say Trump will accept it but it’s worth a shot. Particularly if you can convince someone like Rubio it’s worth doing.

[fox_favourite]

I know people don't like Labour and what not and their policies, so put that to one side. But at least we have a prime minister who is an adult and not an oompa lummpa with an ego. 

[martyn]

22 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I think putting the plan into 3 key points:

- Strong/Capable Ukraine

- European defence support

- US Backstop

is a good way to go. If nothing else it’s a base to run with and gives Trump scope for negotiation/concession to Russia/demand for minerals beyond that.

 

That’s not to say Trump will accept it but it’s worth a shot. Particularly if you can convince someone like Rubio it’s worth doing.

Think Starmer is dealing with this well at the moment.

 

Trump has painted himself as only interested in brokering peace. If Starmer and Macron present a solution which has optics of being a fair one, Trump rejecting it out of hand really would unmask their real intentions.

[Lionator]

36 minutes ago, martyn said:

Think Starmer is dealing with this well at the moment.

 

Trump has painted himself as only interested in brokering peace. If Starmer and Macron present a solution which has optics of being a fair one, Trump rejecting it out of hand really would unmask their real intentions.

Fair and credible are two different things though.

[blabyboy]

See Bibi has taken the que from Trump on negotiating tactics

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9q4w99je78o

[Jon the Hat]

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

I think putting the plan into 3 key points:

- Strong/Capable Ukraine

- European defence support

- US Backstop

is a good way to go. If nothing else it’s a base to run with and gives Trump scope for negotiation/concession to Russia/demand for minerals beyond that.

 

That’s not to say Trump will accept it but it’s worth a shot. Particularly if you can convince someone like Rubio it’s worth doing.

The problem is, Trump and his circles reaction makes it really difficult to row back towards a deal and sell it to his base with any credibility.

 

And it’s this factor that gives credence to the suggestion the scenes in the Oval Office across the entire week was pure theatre aimed at the American public.

 

The fact that the attack lines had been trailed and tested well before and all key talking heads and media were instantly on point with The White House’s party line further fuels this theory.

 

All the top officials knew that security guarantees were the sticking point for Zelenskyy before he travelled to The White House - his points were not new ones and would have been said in the various meetings they had on the deal before - and I think that had Trump and Vance shown at least a supportive attitude at this supposed signing, he would have signed there and then without a cast iron guarantee as the least bad option for his country.

 

Hell, he may have even had a suit in his luggage ready to put on at the signing to signify the ending of the war.

 

But they weren’t supportive in the slightest, the scenario smelt off from the get go; and the fact Trump has been so quick to take the deal of the table suggests he was never really interested in the partnership in the first place.

Edited 2 March 2025 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Lionator]

14 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

See Bibi has taken the que from Trump on negotiating tactics

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9q4w99je78o

Seems like they’re going on their own little imperial adventure in Syria too. 

[martyn]

25 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Fair and credible are two different things though.

Depends from whose perspective you're judging the credibility.

 

Pretty sure what Starmer/Macron present to the US will be absolutely seen as credible from a European perspective, and will not be making what we perceive to be unreasonable demands of the US.

 

Of course it's not going to be credible to Putin.

 

How credible the US find it and it's reaction will be the useful outcome of this and Europe will know full well what path it needs to go down as a result.

 

 

Edited 2 March 2025 by martyn

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

 

Summary from this morning’s developments about a UK / France peace plan.

 

Have to say, I think Starmer is playing some exemplary cricket with all of this.  

Someone wants the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Lionator]

4 minutes ago, martyn said:

Depends from whose perspective you're judging the credibility.

 

Pretty sure what Starmer/Macron present to the US will be absolutely seen as credible from a European perspective, and will not be making what we perceive to be unreasonable demands of the US.

 

Of course it's not going to be credible to Putin.

 

How credible the US find it and it's reaction will be the useful outcome of this and Europe will know full well what path it needs to go down as a result.

 

 

Therefore it’s not credible on a wider scale if it’s not credible to either the United States or Russia.

 

I could credibly think that I could pull Sydney Sweeney but if that’s not a credible thing to her, then it’s not going to happen. It would be my job to make that a credible option to her. 
 

Throwing an underresourced British and French army onto the ground in the plains of Ukraine is not going to stop the war. 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Therefore it’s not credible on a wider scale if it’s not credible to either the United States or Russia.

 

I could credibly think that I could pull Sydney Sweeney but if that’s not a credible thing to her, then it’s not going to happen. It would be my job to make that a credible option to her. 
 

Throwing an underresourced British and French army onto the ground in the plains of Ukraine is not going to stop the war. 

Then what do you do when the other party is seemingly totally unwilling to give ground and absolutely believe they have the right to grind you into the dust?

 

Genuine question.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

11 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Therefore it’s not credible on a wider scale if it’s not credible to either the United States or Russia.

 

I could credibly think that I could pull Sydney Sweeney but if that’s not a credible thing to her, then it’s not going to happen. It would be my job to make that a credible option to her. 
 

Throwing an underresourced British and French army onto the ground in the plains of Ukraine is not going to stop the war. 

It depends what is ultimately agreed with all parties doesn’t it.

 

British and French troops will not be going into an active war zone - it would have to be under a ceasefire.

 

And so if you have a ceasefire, twinned with Ukraine elections, American companies setting up mining facilities and European troops stationed in and around Ukraine - can and will Russia be willing to take the chance of going in again over the next 4-5 years? 
 

Additionally, a lot is being made on how Ukraine can’t hold out for much longer… but I suspect the same can be said for Russia - can their military and economy continue on a war footing for another 12-18 months? 

[Lionator]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Then what do you do when the other party is seemingly totally unwilling to give ground and absolutely believe they have the right to grind you into the dust?

 

Genuine question.

Do what we’re doing, give weaponry to stabilise the front lines, while engaging in forms of diplomacy with Russians (Americans can do this for us if we really, really don’t want to talk to Russians). 
 

Again it comes down to the idea that you either think Putin is Hitler pt.2 who wants to role through Europe, or is just another Russian tyrannical leader whose influence is actually very limited outside the Russian geopolitical sphere. 

[Md9]

Trump must be fuming deep down the Zelenskyy won’t sign any deals from him only a matter of time before he loses his shit even more than normal . If he really wants a peace deal then he should be getting Russia to get out of Ukraine and not keep shouting at Zelenskyy for not bowing down to him and signing deals that won’t benefit anyone other than trump

[DJ Barry Hammond]

22 minutes ago, Md9 said:

Trump must be fuming deep down the Zelenskyy won’t sign any deals from him only a matter of time before he loses his shit even more than normal . If he really wants a peace deal then he should be getting Russia to get out of Ukraine and not keep shouting at Zelenskyy for not bowing down to him and signing deals that won’t benefit anyone other than trump

I estimate that what Trump wants is for the war to end so he can setup trade deals with Russia - because they have plenty of raw materials that would help the US economy.

 

If he can also get a great deal from Ukraine at the same time for similar materials then even better, but his focus is primarily getting to a situation where Russian sanctions are lifted.

Edited 2 March 2025 by DJ Barry Hammond

[st albans fox]

12 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

I estimate that what Trump wants is for the war to end so he can setup trade deals with Russia - because they have plenty of raw materials that he estimates will help the US economy.

 

If he can also get a great deal from Ukraine at the same time, even better, but his focus is primarily getting to a situation where Russian sanctions are lifted.

If trump gets a deal through that leaves Russia in the four oblasts then you can be sure that putin has agreed for them to split the minerals there (which are plentiful).  Would be interesting to see if putin does agree to cede any land he currently holds in a peace deal  and what the mineral content of that land is. 

[leicsmac]

37 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Do what we’re doing, give weaponry to stabilise the front lines, while engaging in forms of diplomacy with Russians (Americans can do this for us if we really, really don’t want to talk to Russians). 
 

Again it comes down to the idea that you either think Putin is Hitler pt.2 who wants to role through Europe, or is just another Russian tyrannical leader whose influence is actually very limited outside the Russian geopolitical sphere. 

Fair enough.

 

I'm pretty sure that is exactly what's happening now anyway.

 

I don't think that Putin is looking to target other nations if he were to claim Ukraine (though not for lack of trying), but at the same time ceding any more land to him and allowing him to dictate terms of what Ukraine can and cannot do in the international community henceforth are unacceptable.

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough.

 

I'm pretty sure that is exactly what's happening now anyway.

 

I don't think that Putin is looking to target other nations if he were to claim Ukraine (though not for lack of trying), but at the same time ceding any more land to him and allowing him to dictate terms of what Ukraine can and cannot do in the international community henceforth are unacceptable.

Yes. My whole point is that we don’t need act hysterically and make any dramatic moves over this whole thing. Keep calm and carry on. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

If trump gets a deal through that leaves Russia in the four oblasts then you can be sure that putin has agreed for them to split the minerals there (which are plentiful).  Would be interesting to see if putin does agree to cede any land he currently holds in a peace deal  and what the mineral content of that land is. 

I doubt it given the territories form a land bridge to Crimea - which had clearly been one of the overriding objectives of the ‘Special Operation.’

[Sampson]

I do think a lot of this is about optics and bringing Europe together for the future to try and created a united block. Russia and Trump want a divided Europe and I think a lot of this is as much a message to European nations that times have changed and we need closer ties.

 

I’ve never known a time when so many Brits refer to “Europe” as a whole entity including the UK as I have in the past week or two. Part of it feels like a complete shift in the way we see ourselves in the world.

Edited 2 March 2025 by Sampson

[Dahnsouff]

Curious that the Baltic states did not get an invite to todays meeting