General News

[Lionator]

5 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I’m fine with it being ended at a negotiating table - particularly, it would mean Ukraine still exists to negotiate. I just think the Americans are being at best naïve, probably negligent and at worst wilfully on the side of the aggressor.

I’m firmly of the opinion that Russia only respects America. Delusions of grandeur but that’s probably where we’re at. 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. 

[Dunge]

16 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I’m firmly of the opinion that Russia only respects America. Delusions of grandeur but that’s probably where we’re at. 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. 

Certainly Putin only respects America, while the Russian people value a strong leader and hard power.

 

I don’t think anyone wants to fight Russia. It’s more concern that we’ll have to if they attack a country we’re duty-bound to defend.

 

I reckon if America agreed to this proposed deal, agreed to the provision of a backstop and went to Russia with it then Russia would ultimately agree. They’d get enough to claim victory and would likely prefer it to continuing the current conflict with Ukraine getting American backing. However, if America don’t agree to it then there’s a choice between a sell-out and Russia continuing at their own pace without American support for Ukraine, in which they’d fancy taking Kyiv by the end of Trump’s presidency if not by the end of the year, with Europe getting a bloody nose in the process. I appreciate you’re saying “then just accept the sell-out”. I guess that would be a choice for Ukraine. At least they’d stand a chance of keeping a country in name, although there’s no guarantee Russia wouldn’t kick off again with America simply walking away and Trump blaming the Ukrainians for some sort of provocation.

Edited 2 March by Dunge

[st albans fox]

41 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Put it this way, for those with kids on here. How would you feel about them getting conscripted and sent to ‘defend Ukraine’? 

Surely we would only send troops to ukraine to act as a ‘ceasefire observation force’ - to ensure putin doesn’t do it again. 
We wouldn’t be alone and no reason that we’d need to conscript to carry out this task. 

 

[Dahnsouff]

12 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I’m firmly of the opinion that Russia only respects America. Delusions of grandeur but that’s probably where we’re at. 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. 

Agree with plenty of this, except the bit  in bold. Who wants to fight Russia? Except Ukraine, as they see been given no choice! There should not be a desire to fight, merely a reluctant willingness to so should further incursions occur.

Best case, ceasefire occurs on best possible terms, Europe recognises its military negligence and the US returns to democracy.

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

 

If you haven’t come across this guy yet… I’m happy to provide you with the Japanese Ambassador enjoying St David’s Day.

Love Welsh cakes.

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

Put it this way, for those with kids on here. How would you feel about them getting conscripted and sent to ‘defend Ukraine’? 

Or as Trump would say, 'to invade Russia'.

[blabyboy]

2 hours ago, Lionator said:

. 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 think you underestimate Putin. He's been at the tiller for at least 20 years, plenty of time to effect political society in Russia. Yes he does manipulate common viewpoints, but let's not ignore the way he has made sure that political discourse in Russia has been strangled by his grasp. See Navalny as exhibit A.

 

This is not about frothing to fight Russians, but Putin has already demonstrated he is willing to break agreements and has said he is ideologically opposed to Ukraine existing as a valid state its own right.

 

So at what point do you engage him, Ukraine, Poland, Germany...? This guy hankers for the USSR of the 60s and 70s in both stature and geographical size. That's rather discomforting too.

 

We need to put him on the back foot, make him consider his moves, and the only way we do this is with boots on the ground in an official capacity.

[blabyboy]

3 hours ago, Dunge said:

However, if America don’t agree to it then there’s a choice between a sell-out and Russia continuing at their own pace without American support for Ukraine, in which they’d fancy taking Kyiv by the end of Trump’s presidency if not by the end of the year, with Europe getting a bloody nose in the process..

I'm not so sure on those timings. This article presents a different outlook both on the military and economic fronts for Russia if they continue. If Ukraine et al can hold them for a year, then it may be that the balance shifts over to Ukraine.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-sustaining-loss-forces-better-than-ukraine-says-iiss-research-centre-2025-02-12/

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, blabyboy said:

I'm not so sure on those timings. This article presents a different outlook both on the military and economic fronts for Russia if they continue. If Ukraine et al can hold them for a year, then it may be that the balance shifts over to Ukraine.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-sustaining-loss-forces-better-than-ukraine-says-iiss-research-centre-2025-02-12/

Fair, I’m not sure either. But if America pulled out completely, Putin would reason that he has more flexibility with approach and timings. Plus we have the spectre of Trump actually dealing with Putin and boosting his economy in the process.

[Lionator]

10 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Surely we would only send troops to ukraine to act as a ‘ceasefire observation force’ - to ensure putin doesn’t do it again. 
We wouldn’t be alone and no reason that we’d need to conscript to carry out this task. 

 

And if Putin tells his air force to fly over eastern Ukraine to see what happens and test the waters we have a choice a) engage Russia directly and all of the risks that come with that, but fulfilling our duties b) observe it and do nothing thus proving the whole purpose of being there is futile. 
 

 

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, Lionator said:

And if Putin tells his air force to fly over eastern Ukraine to see what happens and test the waters we have a choice a) engage Russia directly and all of the risks that come with that, but fulfilling our duties b) observe it and do nothing thus proving the whole purpose of being there is futile. 
 

 

Firstly I don’t believe he would if there was a European peace keeping force on the ground but given your theoretical question why would we then send conscripted troops to a potential war zone rather than additional professional soldiers ?   If they were to fly over Ukrainian soil then after a stern warning, I  would expect the western air defences to be utilised to either intercept with fighter jets or hardware from the ground (latter more likely).  

I doubt putin is keen to have European fighting troops on Ukrainian soil in any case - I’m sure they would only accept a UN force as part of an agreement and we’ve seen how effective that is in many parts of the world. 

 

I guess your question is more are we prepared to enter a full on war with Russia and that would involve conscription at some point.  If the Russians are actually prepared to engage in that with European forces then I suppose we have no option because what’s the alternative?  Baltic states? Poland?  Moldova?  Hungary?  Czech Republic? Etc etc      (China would never allow this to develop either. A slaughtered global economy is not in their interest). 

 

If the basic question is how would I feel about one of my kids being conscripted to fight Russian expansionism and aggression then the answer is that I don’t think there is a choice because what world would their kids end up living in .  Just as we did in 1939, you have to take a stand.  Is Ukraine alone worth that commitment?  I don’t think we end up with conscription just over ukraine but only if that expands further. 
 

sorry for the rambling reply !

[Salisbury Fox]

25 minutes ago, Lionator said:

And if Putin tells his air force to fly over eastern Ukraine to see what happens and test the waters we have a choice a) engage Russia directly and all of the risks that come with that, but fulfilling our duties b) observe it and do nothing thus proving the whole purpose of being there is futile. 
 

 

Obviously it would depend on the Rules of Engagement that are put in place. Given we will be able to track aircraft from launch to any incursion I would expect any Russian aircraft to be met with some of our own pretty quickly. To be honest I wouldn’t be surprised to see some form of no fly zone to prevent that sort of thing, making it more obvious who was to blame. The Russians playing games will be a constant threat though and I would say that there is a higher risk of more deniable activities like mines and IEDs being laid.

[Muzzy_no7]

17 hours ago, Bilo said:

As said elsewhere, Russian logistics and technology are pretty atrocious. This would lessen risk, at least until 2028 when a Democrat likely wins the presidency. 

How come? 

[Lionator]

21 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

How come? 

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. 

[Dahnsouff]

4 minutes 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. 

Big leap to couple growth under Biden with growth under Trump tbh, especially after recent signals and discontent from markets

[Torquay Gunner]

Just saw for the first time, a clip, not shown on mainstream news, which I think is near the beginning of the infamous white house row.  I don't have it to upload unfortunately.  However, Zelensky is explaining to tweedledum and tweedledee the origins of Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, so the invasion of Crimea in 2014 and Putin’s breaking of agreements.  Trump’s contribution is to interject and say that it was 2015 and upon being corrected just shrugs and says “ I was not around then”.  When Zelensky mentions dealing with Obama and Biden the mood changes and Vance goes into his disrespect bs.  People saying on here that Putin respects the USA, I am sure he is just laughing at how they have re-elected two utter imbeciles into high office. 

[Dunge]

2 minutes ago, Torquay Gunner said:

Just saw for the first time, a clip, not shown on mainstream news, which I think is near the beginning of the infamous white house row.  I don't have it to upload unfortunately.  However, Zelensky is explaining to tweedledum and tweedledee the origins of Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, so the invasion of Crimea in 2014 and Putin’s breaking of agreements.  Trump’s contribution is to interject and say that it was 2015 and upon being corrected just shrugs and says “ I was not around then”.  When Zelensky mentions dealing with Obama and Biden the mood changes and Vance goes into his disrespect bs.  People saying on here that Putin respects the USA, I am sure he is just laughing at how they have re-elected two utter imbeciles into high office. 

Definitely. What I mean is that he respects their power, their military. I doubt he respects their culture or their people.

[leicsmac]

- I'm not sure Vance (who I will assume will be the chosen candidate) can work the con artist routine as successfully as Trump has

 

- the next election may well be fought on issues that any Trump-style Repub candidate may be uncomfortable with

 

That being said, there's a long way between here and there, and there's no guarantee about what the world (to say nothing of the integrity of the US electoral process) will look like then, so I don't think many predictions will hold any kind of water right now.

[Torquay Gunner]

29 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Definitely. What I mean is that he respects their power, their military. I doubt he respects their culture or their people.

Indeed, but it is of course these imbeciles that will decide upon their policy.  They have made it clear that they hold no regard for Ukraine, besides the mineral wealth they perceive available.  I don't see Russia have anything to fear from any possible escalation from the US as it stands. 

[Bilo]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

- I'm not sure Vance (who I will assume will be the chosen candidate) can work the con artist routine as successfully as Trump has

 

- the next election may well be fought on issues that any Trump-style Repub candidate may be uncomfortable with

 

That being said, there's a long way between here and there, and there's no guarantee about what the world (to say nothing of the integrity of the US electoral process) will look like then, so I don't think many predictions will hold any kind of water right now.

Trumpism goes out with Trump. Vance, for example, is thunderously uncharismatic and a loud, brash personality is vital to hiding the sheer bullshit of MAGA.

 

Also, the US economy was growing under Biden and many elements of living standards were improving with low unemployment, yet MAGA convinced the cult that America was going to hell in a handbasket because eggs were too expensive. What happened to the price of eggs by the way? 

[Bilo]

7 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. 

Not a prayer.

 

The markets and cost of living point to an economy that isn't going to enjoy the growth it did under Biden this past year.

[reynard]

22 hours ago, Lionator said:

Probably at a negotiating table (but I realise this will be an unpopular view). 

I don't think that would be an unpopular view at all. I'm just not certain that it would work and lead to peace. Thanks to Trump the world is now a much much more dangerous one than it was just a few months ago. His appeasement of Russia and desire to take the US along an isolationist route, unless there is some money grabbing rip off deal to be done to line the US's pockets, surely emboldens China to think they could attack Taiwan without American interference.

 

It think we should all be worried that history is in effect in danger of repeating itself on a 100 year cycle. In 1839 Britain, along with other nations, signed the Treaty of London which was done to guarantee Belgian sovereignty and the refusal of German to withdraw troops from Belgium was used as the final pretext for Britain to declare war in August 1914. 100 years later in March 1939 the Uk along with France promised to guarantee the same for Poland.

Both of these were followed by brutal world wars. I can't really see how such an agreement for Ukraine, which I think is what might be being suggested right now would lead anywhere but to eventual war with Russia, especially, if, as seem pretty certain, the US would not be interested in supporting.

And of course  the US was little interested in both wars and took several years to join. In fact the UK debt for money borrowed from the US in WWi was not finally paid off until 2017.  We defaulted in 1934 as the debt owed was so great.  The BBC quotes the following.

 ‘In 1934, Britain owed the US $4.4 billion of World War I debt (about £866 million at 1934 exchange rates). Adjusted by the Retail Price Index, a typical measure of inflation, £866 million would equate to £40 billion now, and if adjusted by the growth of Gross Domestic Product, to about £225 billion’.

Indeed we took 60 years to finally pay back the WWII debt owed to the US.  

The escalation in production of weapons and equipment as well as personnel required now to redress the decline of the last 20+ years is going to stretch our finances to the limit. 

Trump is interested in only two things, his own ego, and money.  He's a bully and a coward and one with no understanding or interest in the rest of the world unless there is a financial deal to be done. 

The best worldwide response to him would be a complete boycott of everything American from walnuts to cars etc etc.

 

[st albans fox]

10 minutes ago, reynard said:

I don't think that would be an unpopular view at all. I'm just not certain that it would work and lead to peace. Thanks to Trump the world is now a much much more dangerous one than it was just a few months ago. His appeasement of Russia and desire to take the US along an isolationist route, unless there is some money grabbing rip off deal to be done to line the US's pockets, surely emboldens China to think they could attack Taiwan without American interference.

 

It think we should all be worried that history is in effect in danger of repeating itself on a 100 year cycle. In 1839 Britain, along with other nations, signed the Treaty of London which was done to guarantee Belgian sovereignty and the refusal of German to withdraw troops from Belgium was used as the final pretext for Britain to declare war in August 1914. 100 years later in March 1939 the Uk along with France promised to guarantee the same for Poland.

Both of these were followed by brutal world wars. I can't really see how such an agreement for Ukraine, which I think is what might be being suggested right now would lead anywhere but to eventual war with Russia, especially, if, as seem pretty certain, the US would not be interested in supporting.

And of course  the US was little interested in both wars and took several years to join. In fact the UK debt for money borrowed from the US in WWi was not finally paid off until 2017.  We defaulted in 1934 as the debt owed was so great.  The BBC quotes the following.

 ‘In 1934, Britain owed the US $4.4 billion of World War I debt (about £866 million at 1934 exchange rates). Adjusted by the Retail Price Index, a typical measure of inflation, £866 million would equate to £40 billion now, and if adjusted by the growth of Gross Domestic Product, to about £225 billion’.

Indeed we took 60 years to finally pay back the WWII debt owed to the US.  

The escalation in production of weapons and equipment as well as personnel required now to redress the decline of the last 20+ years is going to stretch our finances to the limit. 

Trump is interested in only two things, his own ego, and money.  He's a bully and a coward and one with no understanding or interest in the rest of the world unless there is a financial deal to be done. 

The best worldwide response to him would be a complete boycott of everything American from walnuts to cars etc etc.

 

Walnuts! 
Could have started somewhere easy like my iPhone ……

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, reynard said:

I don't think that would be an unpopular view at all. I'm just not certain that it would work and lead to peace. Thanks to Trump the world is now a much much more dangerous one than it was just a few months ago. His appeasement of Russia and desire to take the US along an isolationist route, unless there is some money grabbing rip off deal to be done to line the US's pockets, surely emboldens China to think they could attack Taiwan without American interference.

 

It think we should all be worried that history is in effect in danger of repeating itself on a 100 year cycle. In 1839 Britain, along with other nations, signed the Treaty of London which was done to guarantee Belgian sovereignty and the refusal of German to withdraw troops from Belgium was used as the final pretext for Britain to declare war in August 1914. 100 years later in March 1939 the Uk along with France promised to guarantee the same for Poland.

Both of these were followed by brutal world wars. I can't really see how such an agreement for Ukraine, which I think is what might be being suggested right now would lead anywhere but to eventual war with Russia, especially, if, as seem pretty certain, the US would not be interested in supporting.

And of course  the US was little interested in both wars and took several years to join. In fact the UK debt for money borrowed from the US in WWi was not finally paid off until 2017.  We defaulted in 1934 as the debt owed was so great.  The BBC quotes the following.

 ‘In 1934, Britain owed the US $4.4 billion of World War I debt (about £866 million at 1934 exchange rates). Adjusted by the Retail Price Index, a typical measure of inflation, £866 million would equate to £40 billion now, and if adjusted by the growth of Gross Domestic Product, to about £225 billion’.

Indeed we took 60 years to finally pay back the WWII debt owed to the US.  

The escalation in production of weapons and equipment as well as personnel required now to redress the decline of the last 20+ years is going to stretch our finances to the limit. 

Trump is interested in only two things, his own ego, and money.  He's a bully and a coward and one with no understanding or interest in the rest of the world unless there is a financial deal to be done. 

The best worldwide response to him would be a complete boycott of everything American from walnuts to cars etc etc.

 

 

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Walnuts! 
Could have started somewhere easy like my iPhone ……

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.

[Clogger_]

Farage's mob come over like a Russian fifth column