General News Thread

[leicsmac]

Is it too much to expect that whatever Epstein information comes out in the coming days is utterly crippling to the current US administration and their deeply hostile intentions?

 

Probably. 

[fox_up_north]

Disappointed Belgium kiboshed the use of Russian assets. Some believe that it will be used as a stick to Putin - don't play ball and you lose 200 billion.

 

On one hand - hurrah for the "loan" but we could be doing more. EU really needs to be showing more backbone and resolve, in the face of an enemy testing both. 

[Md9]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Is it too much to expect that whatever Epstein information comes out in the coming days is utterly crippling to the current US administration and their deeply hostile intentions?

 

Probably. 

All the names will be covered but Biden and Obama will be the only 2 on the list as they seem to do everything wrong for trump. 
there will be some shady stuff happening trumps probably giving this $1776 dollars to the military so he can get them to do what ever he wants thinking that small amount will buy people. Wouldn’t be surprised to see a bigger security presence around the White House or his mar a lago where he will probably hide tonight so they can’t take him away 

[danny.]

Let's not pretend it's only Trump that's corrupt. USA corruption has been going on for a long time with trillions not being tracked properly. Their whole system is broken and corrupt.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, danny. said:

Let's not pretend it's only Trump that's corrupt. USA corruption has been going on for a long time with trillions not being tracked properly. Their whole system is broken and corrupt.

No doubt whatsoever there. 

 

However, with all that being equal, at least most of his predecessors had at least the common decency to have some kind of consideration for both the future and for people who didn't pay direct homage to them as some kind of absolute cult of personality monarch in their policy decision making. This administration is different there. 

 

If highlighting the corruption, as "business as usual" as it may be, somehow helps get in the way, then that's fair IMO. 

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, fox_up_north said:

Disappointed Belgium kiboshed the use of Russian assets. Some believe that it will be used as a stick to Putin - don't play ball and you lose 200 billion.

 

On one hand - hurrah for the "loan" but we could be doing more. EU really needs to be showing more backbone and resolve, in the face of an enemy testing both. 

The problem for Belgium was always that they wanted shared responsibility and the other EU countries weren’t prepared to do that. I don’t blame Belgium, it’s a weakness of the EU system. 
 

The problem is now that the funds come from the taxpayer which is obviously going to turn more people against supporting Ukraine. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 minutes ago, Lionator said:

The problem is now that the funds come from the taxpayer which is obviously going to turn more people against supporting Ukraine. 

And yet if there were people bathing in baked beans, tipping cold water over themselves, cutting/growing their hair in a televised charity drive, for said cause, they'd be tripping over each other to give their money away.

[danny.]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

No doubt whatsoever there. 

 

However, with all that being equal, at least most of his predecessors had at least the common decency to have some kind of consideration for both the future and for people who didn't pay direct homage to them as some kind of absolute cult of personality monarch in their policy decision making. This administration is different there. 

 

If highlighting the corruption, as "business as usual" as it may be, somehow helps get in the way, then that's fair IMO. 

Don't think there is much difference between most of them, bar PR and how crazy they come across on socials. Biden was horrific too, really creepy and clearly had some kind of cognitive condition.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, danny. said:

Don't think there is much difference between most of them, bar PR and how crazy they come across on socials. Biden was horrific too, really creepy and clearly had some kind of cognitive condition.

I think the difference in policy platforms concerning social and scientific matters tell their own story there, but fair enough.

 

You do wonder where the people are who actually give a shit about something more than themselves are when it comes to leadership. Not seeking power, presumably, which is bad news for us all. 

[danny.]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I think the difference in policy platforms concerning social and scientific matters tell their own story there, but fair enough.

 

You do wonder where the people are who actually give a shit about something more than themselves are when it comes to leadership. Not seeking power, presumably, which is bad news for us all. 

Moot point in the US as you have to buy the chance to run for president and again to become president. There could be a million amazing candidates that would do a great job but unless they have the required billions of dollars they can't become president. And the donors that give those billions want something back.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, danny. said:

Moot point in the US as you have to buy the chance to run for president and again to become president. There could be a million amazing candidates that would do a great job but unless they have the required billions of dollars they can't become president. And the donors that give those billions want something back.

Yeah, and I think the same is true for any kind of office there. Even local officials go out fundraising the moment they're elected for the next election. 

 

It is a broken system, as you say. The problem is that the decisions that system makes often affect us all. 

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, fox_up_north said:

Disappointed Belgium kiboshed the use of Russian assets. Some believe that it will be used as a stick to Putin - don't play ball and you lose 200 billion.

 

On one hand - hurrah for the "loan" but we could be doing more. EU really needs to be showing more backbone and resolve, in the face of an enemy testing both. 

Tbh the only possible end is Russia having those regions, or at best the land it's already got. There isn't going to be any way to get that land back. American security guarantees on one side and accepting the land is gone on the other is going to have to happen in some way, shape or form. European leaders do seem to be prolonging things in the pretence that isn't going to be how it ends. What I don't like is trump attempting to take Ukrainian resources and making it about ways to make money for the Americans, but that aside, there does need to be a reality check about how this needs to end.

[kenny]

17 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Tbh the only possible end is Russia having those regions, or at best the land it's already got. There isn't going to be any way to get that land back. American security guarantees on one side and accepting the land is gone on the other is going to have to happen in some way, shape or form. European leaders do seem to be prolonging things in the pretence that isn't going to be how it ends. What I don't like is trump attempting to take Ukrainian resources and making it about ways to make money for the Americans, but that aside, there does need to be a reality check about how this needs to end.

What you have suggested may be the end result. But as it stands this offer isn't on the table at present as Putin thinks he will get more from the USA.

[Salisbury Fox]

14 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Tbh the only possible end is Russia having those regions, or at best the land it's already got. There isn't going to be any way to get that land back. American security guarantees on one side and accepting the land is gone on the other is going to have to happen in some way, shape or form. European leaders do seem to be prolonging things in the pretence that isn't going to be how it ends. What I don't like is trump attempting to take Ukrainian resources and making it about ways to make money for the Americans, but that aside, there does need to be a reality check about how this needs to end.

I think that view oversimplifies the situation. while I agree it may not be realistic for Ukraine to regain land already lost, what’s being proposed goes much further than that. It would require Ukraine to hand over territory it currently controls, much of which forms a critical defensive barrier against further Russian advances. This article explains the military implications in more detail: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6yd4d5zj6o. 

 

I feel on a more broader basis, rewarding territorial aggression undermines the credibility of any future security guarantees. If borders become negotiable under military pressure, then those guarantees become inherently unreliable. There are also strong reasons to be sceptical about Russian intentions after any agreement, given its previous violations of the Budapest memorandum and the Minsk accords. 
 

It feels unfair to suggest European leaders are prolonging the conflict, I would suggest that they’re trying to deter a precedent where borders in Europe can be changed by force, which would have far wider consequences than Ukraine alone.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I think that view oversimplifies the situation. while I agree it may not be realistic for Ukraine to regain land already lost, what’s being proposed goes much further than that. It would require Ukraine to hand over territory it currently controls, much of which forms a critical defensive barrier against further Russian advances. This article explains the military implications in more detail: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6yd4d5zj6o. 

 

I feel on a more broader basis, rewarding territorial aggression undermines the credibility of any future security guarantees. If borders become negotiable under military pressure, then those guarantees become inherently unreliable. There are also strong reasons to be sceptical about Russian intentions after any agreement, given its previous violations of the Budapest memorandum and the Minsk accords. 
 

It feels unfair to suggest European leaders are prolonging the conflict, I would suggest that they’re trying to deter a precedent where borders in Europe can be changed by force, which would have far wider consequences than Ukraine alone.

 

With all of this said, what exactly is the best feasible outcome and how might be be achieved?

[CornwallFox]

9 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I think that view oversimplifies the situation. while I agree it may not be realistic for Ukraine to regain land already lost, what’s being proposed goes much further than that. It would require Ukraine to hand over territory it currently controls, much of which forms a critical defensive barrier against further Russian advances. This article explains the military implications in more detail: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6yd4d5zj6o. 

 

I feel on a more broader basis, rewarding territorial aggression undermines the credibility of any future security guarantees. If borders become negotiable under military pressure, then those guarantees become inherently unreliable. There are also strong reasons to be sceptical about Russian intentions after any agreement, given its previous violations of the Budapest memorandum and the Minsk accords. 
 

It feels unfair to suggest European leaders are prolonging the conflict, I would suggest that they’re trying to deter a precedent where borders in Europe can be changed by force, which would have far wider consequences than Ukraine alone.

 

Borders have been changed by force for centuries. I struggle with the concept it's suddenly impossible to agree to such a thing. European borders have been created in the last 30 years. Not saying it's right, just that it happens all the time.

[Free Falling Foxes]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

With all of this said, what exactly is the best feasible outcome and how might be be achieved?

Not feasible with the current incumbent in the Kremlin, nor perhaps to Ukraine, but the land currently occupied by Russian forces is leased to Russia for 10 or 20 years - similar to the Hong Kong arrangement we had with China.

I know it could be kicking the can down the road, but in 10 years plus Putin, nor Trump for that matter, will be around. 

Edited 19 December 2025 by Free Falling Foxes

[Salisbury Fox]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

With all of this said, what exactly is the best feasible outcome and how might be be achieved?

Personally I would say that the best outcome from a Ukrainian perspective would be see the battle lines frozen as they are now. The only way to achieve this is to keep Ukraine in the fight for as long as they want to be. This is what I think last night’s deal does. 

[Salisbury Fox]

6 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Borders have been changed by force for centuries. I struggle with the concept it's suddenly impossible to agree to such a thing. European borders have been created in the last 30 years. Not saying it's right, just that it happens all the time.

It’s inevitable that an agreement of some sort will happen, but we need it to not lead to further conflict down the line which giving Russia everything it demands would do in my opinion.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Free Falling Foxes said:

Not feasible with the current incumbent in the Kremlin, nor perhaps to Ukraine, but the land currently occupied by Russian forces is leased to Russia for 10 or 20 years - similar to the Hong Kong arrangement we had with China.

I know it could be kicking the can down the road, but in 10 years plus Putin, nor Trump for that matter, will be around. 

 

4 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Personally I would say that the best outcome from a Ukrainian perspective would be see the battle lines frozen as they are now. The only way to achieve this is to keep Ukraine in the fight for as long as they want to be. This is what I think last night’s deal does. 

Thanks for the viewpoints, enlightening. 

[leicsmac]

https://newrepublic.com/article/204254/survey-2024-election-cassandras-trump-2025

 

The language may be inflammatory. It may be "I told you so" in about 1500 words. 

 

But there's not much in there that isn't reasonably accurate. 

[danny.]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://newrepublic.com/article/204254/survey-2024-election-cassandras-trump-2025

 

The language may be inflammatory. It may be "I told you so" in about 1500 words. 

 

But there's not much in there that isn't reasonably accurate. 

stopped reading at "fascism"

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, danny. said:

stopped reading at "fascism"

 most of what I meant about inflammatory language there. 

 

But what the article says about what has been done, and what is being done,and how quite a few people saw it coming, is rather harder to directly dismiss.

[Lionator]

5 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

Tbh the only possible end is Russia having those regions, or at best the land it's already got. There isn't going to be any way to get that land back. American security guarantees on one side and accepting the land is gone on the other is going to have to happen in some way, shape or form. European leaders do seem to be prolonging things in the pretence that isn't going to be how it ends. What I don't like is trump attempting to take Ukrainian resources and making it about ways to make money for the Americans, but that aside, there does need to be a reality check about how this needs to end.

Careful, this rational and realistic view will get you cancelled on this forum. 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Lionator said:

Careful, this rational and realistic view will get you cancelled on this forum. 

Rational, realistic, even likely, bit the sad thing is people are learning to accept such injustices. Being proved rght is not the same as being moral.