General News

[bovril]

I thought Lowe was a little more impressive than Farage as he seemed to actually have some policy ideas, although whether that would have translated well with their voter base is debatable I guess. 

[Guest Bilo]

35 minutes ago, izzymuzzet said:

Farage's fellow Reform MPs would be mad to try and topple him. I can't stand the bloke but he's clearly got an appeal to a part of the electorate that others on the populist right don't have. His successors after he left UKIP were either ruddy faced mustard trouser wearing aristocrats who wanted to bring back the British Raj or skinheads flirting with Tommy Robinson. I reckon Farage's appeal tops out at about 25% of voters but that's well above what Rupert Lowe or any of those other goons would manage.

They've peaked. 

 

They probably won't even manage to match what the Alliance did in 1983 in terms of vote share and seats, but will split that right-wing vote and essentially give Starmer a second term by default. My feeling is that Labour are climbing up from their baseline, as will the Tories, and Reform will probably still be on single figures in 2028.

 

Farage barely turns up in Clacton, McMurdock wouldn't have passed vetting in a proper party and is now a liability and Lowe's relationship with the company is beyond repair.

 

I'd only be confident of Tice and Leeanderthal being re-elected, and the former would be swept away if the Tories got their shit together. 

[Guest Bilo]

 

 

 

[Lionator]

45 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I agree that peace is always worth a go, I just don’t see how peace can endure by giving away most of your negotiating strengths to an aggressor state. Not to mention encouraging others to act in a similar manner.

The problem is the pre-requisite for negotiations, Ukraine wants security guarantees from the US BEFORE they negotiate which Trump is unwilling to do. Therefore it’s led to where we are now. Russia don’t really have any pre-requisites as things are going their way to an extent. It looks like Ukraine are about to lose Kursk too. It’s likely that Trump might just say to Ukraine ‘sod it’ and let nature take its course which would be disastrous. They need to negotiate. You can always walk away if it doesn’t work out. 

[Paninistickers]

53 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I agree that peace is always worth a go, I just don’t see how peace can endure by giving away most of your negotiating strengths to an aggressor state. Not to mention encouraging others to act in a similar manner.

There's more than one way to cook an egg. 

 

Ukraine have perhaps been a bit too transparent in their reliance on the west. They maybe need to sow some seeds of doubt in the Russians rather than lay out preconditions. 

 

Suggestions of guerilla war. Iraq,.Taliban style insurgency. Assassinations of leading Putinites (which they've proved they can do). Team up with Chechnyan separatists....give themselves some negotiation power

 

 

[CosbehFox]

6 hours ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Behave😂😂😂.

 

Happens across the board on the regular.

Oh aye 

[Salisbury Fox]

3 minutes ago, Lionator said:

The problem is the pre-requisite for negotiations, Ukraine wants security guarantees from the US BEFORE they negotiate which Trump is unwilling to do. Therefore it’s led to where we are now. Russia don’t really have any pre-requisites as things are going their way to an extent. It looks like Ukraine are about to lose Kursk too. It’s likely that Trump might just say to Ukraine ‘sod it’ and let nature take its course which would be disastrous. They need to negotiate. You can always walk away if it doesn’t work out. 

I don’t blame them for looking for security guarantees, it’s absolutely ridiculous that these were given up before talks have even began. It’s either gross incompetence, naivety or Russia has something on them. One of Russia’s pre-requisites of no NATO membership has already been given up by Trump. 
 

There are lots of historic examples where peace agreements have not prevented war a number of years down the line and so I don’t share your optimism that putting Ukraine in a weaker negotiating position will lead to a desired end goal for the rest of Europe or the rest of the non-dictator led world.
 

 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

Georgia Meloni is quite hot. 

Wrong thread !

[bovril]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Wrong thread !

I'm commenting on the news

[st albans fox]

Just now, Salisbury Fox said:

I don’t blame them for looking for security guarantees, it’s absolutely ridiculous that these were given up before talks have even began. It’s either gross incompetence, naivety or Russia has something on them. One of Russia’s pre-requisites of no NATO membership has already been given up by Trump. 
 

There are lots of historic examples where peace agreements have not prevented war a number of years down the line and so I don’t share your optimism that putting Ukraine in a weaker negotiating position will lead to a desired end goal for the rest of Europe or the rest of the non-dictator led world.
 

 

Ukraine may have now realised that they have to do this on trust and potentially end up being ‘sold out’.  I think trump’s intention is to make a peace deal and allow putin to see a favourable Ukrainian govt elected at some point in the next few years. 
 

trump is saying that anything other than no preconditions will see Russia refuse to negotiate  (meanwhile we’re pretty sure that he’s already confirmed quite a few to Moscow).  

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

I'm commenting on the news

I thought you meant to put this on birds on the telly !

[Salisbury Fox]

10 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

There's more than one way to cook an egg. 

 

Ukraine have perhaps been a bit too transparent in their reliance on the west. They maybe need to sow some seeds of doubt in the Russians rather than lay out preconditions. 

 

Suggestions of guerilla war. Iraq,.Taliban style insurgency. Assassinations of leading Putinites (which they've proved they can do). Team up with Chechnyan separatists....give themselves some negotiation power

 

 

I don’t feel they could have been anything other than transparent given the amount of support needed. Plus, how else were they to get that support without openly pressurising states to step up. Russia’s economy is in the toilet, their logistics are destroyed hence the wide use of donkeys, now would be the best time to strengthen Ukraine’s hand, not weaken it.
 

I don’t believe that suggestions of a guerilla war offer a plausible negotiations strategy either. For starters it would likely result in much of Ukraine’s population fleeing creating an enormous refugee crisis for the rest of Europe.

[Salisbury Fox]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Ukraine may have now realised that they have to do this on trust and potentially end up being ‘sold out’.  I think trump’s intention is to make a peace deal and allow putin to see a favourable Ukrainian govt elected at some point in the next few years. 
 

trump is saying that anything other than no preconditions will see Russia refuse to negotiate  (meanwhile we’re pretty sure that he’s already confirmed quite a few to Moscow).  

That would be a sell out and I fail to see how that is in the interests of anyone who isn’t in the pay of Russia. 
 

Meanwhile Russia is providing preconditions for talks. 

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I don’t feel they could have been anything other than transparent given the amount of support needed. Plus, how else were they to get that support without openly pressurising states to step up. Russia’s economy is in the toilet, their logistics are destroyed hence the wide use of donkeys, now would be the best time to strengthen Ukraine’s hand, not weaken it.
 

I don’t believe that suggestions of a guerilla war offer a plausible negotiations strategy either. For starters it would likely result in much of Ukraine’s population fleeing creating an enormous refugee crisis for the rest of Europe.

I find it difficult to see how such a crisis will be averted in the future at all to be honest, whether this or something else or a combination of factors causes it.

[Lionator]

41 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Ukraine may have now realised that they have to do this on trust and potentially end up being ‘sold out’.  I think trump’s intention is to make a peace deal and allow putin to see a favourable Ukrainian govt elected at some point in the next few years. 
 

trump is saying that anything other than no preconditions will see Russia refuse to negotiate  (meanwhile we’re pretty sure that he’s already confirmed quite a few to Moscow).  

Trust is nothing in geopolitics. Assad trusted Putin would come to his rescue and look how that ended. 
 

If you just let it play out as Russia v Ukraine with no American support but continual European support, Ukraine would slowly and then gradually get pushed back further, which then their negotiating position would be even worse. Nothing Trump said today about Russia holding the cards is betrayal, it’s the cold hard truth that Ukranians and (most of) their supporters refuse to believe. 

Edited 7 March 2025 by Lionator

[Lionator]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I find it difficult to see how such a crisis will be averted in the future at all to be honest, whether this or something else or a combination of factors causes it.

A lot of Ukrainians will accept anything provided it’s not missiles and air alerts. They were in the USSR for decades. 

[st albans fox]

40 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

That would be a sell out and I fail to see how that is in the interests of anyone who isn’t in the pay of Russia. 
 

Meanwhile Russia is providing preconditions for talks. 

Agree 100% 

maybe we’ll be surprised 

very much doubt it though 

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Lionator said:

A lot of Ukrainians will accept anything provided it’s not missiles and air alerts. They were in the USSR for decades. 

Agreed, but I guess we'll find out.

[Guest Bilo]

1 hour ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I don’t feel they could have been anything other than transparent given the amount of support needed. Plus, how else were they to get that support without openly pressurising states to step up. Russia’s economy is in the toilet, their logistics are destroyed hence the wide use of donkeys, now would be the best time to strengthen Ukraine’s hand, not weaken it.
 

I don’t believe that suggestions of a guerilla war offer a plausible negotiations strategy either. For starters it would likely result in much of Ukraine’s population fleeing creating an enormous refugee crisis for the rest of Europe.

 

49 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I find it difficult to see how such a crisis will be averted in the future at all to be honest, whether this or something else or a combination of factors causes it.

Agree with leicsmac here. Whether it's now through a continuation of the war via dirty guerilla means or in a couple of years by a Putin puppet being 'elected,' a refugee exodus would be pretty much certain. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Bilo said:

 

Agree with leicsmac here. Whether it's now through a continuation of the war via dirty guerilla means or in a couple of years by a Putin puppet being 'elected,' a refugee exodus would be pretty much certain. 

And even if it isn't Ukraine, it could - and likely will - be other places.

[Guest Bilo]

46 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Trust is nothing in geopolitics. Assad trusted Putin would come to his rescue and look how that ended. 
 

If you just let it play out as Russia v Ukraine with no American support but continual European support, Ukraine would slowly and then gradually get pushed back further, which then their negotiating position would be even worse. Nothing Trump said today about Russia holding the cards is betrayal, it’s the cold hard truth that Ukranians and (most of) their supporters refuse to believe. 

For me, it's about how economic pressure evolves.

 

Sanctions on Russia have done some damage, but they could be hitting a lot harder. If the goal is to put real pressure on Putin, then it’s time to step things up. That means cutting off the cash flow properly—no more half-measures on Russian oil and gas, no loopholes, no exemptions. Every barrel they sell funds the war. It means freezing Russian banks out of the global system entirely, making it impossible for them to move money around. It means going after the oligarchs, their families, and anyone else propping up the regime, making sure there’s nowhere to hide.

 

Russia shouldn’t have access to the tech it needs to build weapons or keep its industry going, so export bans need to be expanded. Any company or bank helping them dodge sanctions should face consequences too—there can’t be any backdoors left open. Businesses still dealing with Russia should be forced to disclose their connections, because transparency alone would deter many from continuing. And if we’re serious about holding Russia accountable, it should be officially designated as a state sponsor of terror, tightening restrictions even further.

 

Then there’s the matter of frozen Russian assets. If confiscating them outright is legally complicated, at the very least, the profits they generate should be put to use supporting Ukraine as employed by Starmer and Reeves. Every sanction should have real consequences. Right now, there’s too much room for manoeuvre, too many ways for Russia to keep going. It’s time to stop playing around and make sure these measures actually bite.

 

 

[Guest Bilo]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And even if it isn't Ukraine, it could - and likely will - be other places.

The Baltics worry me most. Fascist Russia feels they are still their territory, Trump is decidedly uninterested and their military is tiny.

 

They'll never get as far as they did pre-1991, Poland's military strength would see to that and an invasion of Poland would likely be a red line even for the idiot in Washington, but that's still six million people across three highly developed democracies who will be sleeping less soundly. 

[Salisbury Fox]

21 minutes ago, Bilo said:

 

Agree with leicsmac here. Whether it's now through a continuation of the war via dirty guerilla means or in a couple of years by a Putin puppet being 'elected,' a refugee exodus would be pretty much certain. 

I’m not sure it has to be though, Ukraine has proven very capable. I don’t see why we wouldn’t keep them in the fight for as long as they want or at the very least put them in the strongest position for negotiations. I think Europe's politicians are beginning to realise that we are already at war with Russia albeit not in a conventional sense. We now need to start showing figures like Fido and Orban that there are consequences for being open to Russian influence

[Salisbury Fox]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

A lot of Ukrainians will accept anything provided it’s not missiles and air alerts. They were in the USSR for decades. 

Even a Russian imposed leader and Russian control? I struggle to understand how people can write them off after everything that has gone on.

[Salisbury Fox]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

Trust is nothing in geopolitics. Assad trusted Putin would come to his rescue and look how that ended. 
 

If you just let it play out as Russia v Ukraine with no American support but continual European support, Ukraine would slowly and then gradually get pushed back further, which then their negotiating position would be even worse. Nothing Trump said today about Russia holding the cards is betrayal, it’s the cold hard truth that Ukranians and (most of) their supporters refuse to believe. 

Betrayal was certainly in plain view when the US sided with Russia at the UN and when they blamed Ukraine for being invaded.