is that it now game over no chance of POTUS

 

Rayguns out

1 hour ago, Tombwfc said:

 

I don't understand why it's impossible to answer. Trump has no interest in getting Ukraine all of its land back, and even less interest in getting rid of Putin. If you believe those things are necessary, how do you propose we achieve either of them without the support of the US?

The word 'appeasement' gets used because of its obvious historical connotations. But my sense would be most people are not up for alternatives that involve massively increasing financial hardship in this country or, worse, our troops fighting a war with Russia. It would be an absolutely miserable outcome for Russia to get to keep land it has stolen from the Ukraine, but plenty of other miserable things happen that we don't pile in to avert.

There's a lot of sense in here Tom - and I'd be lying if I said there isn't a part of me that thinks this way. Or at least considers this as an option. I constantly ask myself whether I am just thinking with my heart and not my head? 

But what I keep coming back to is 'what do the Ukrainians want'?

For me - they need to be the ones making the decisions. 

The way I see it is that if VP isn't stopped or a least resisted to the point where he has to negotiate a settlement that involves him giving up a lot of ground/money/influence then Ukraine will end up Russian in the not too distant future. Whether by military means or by installing a puppet (which I think Trump would help him organise). And then all bets are off for him pushing further West. 

But there's loads of doubt in my mind and I'm always questioning myself about it. I think everyone should really. There is no absolute right or wrong here. 

And it doesn't necessarily follow that if Hitler being appeased led to World War 2 that the same thing would happen in this instance. But it's an awfully big risk if he sets his eyes on somewhere like Poland. 

 

33 minutes ago, kent_white said:

There's a lot of sense in here Tom - and I'd be lying if I said there isn't a part of me that thinks this way. Or at least considers this as an option. I constantly ask myself whether I am just thinking with my heart and not my head? 

But what I keep coming back to is 'what do the Ukrainians want'?

For me - they need to be the ones making the decisions. 

The way I see it is that if VP isn't stopped or a least resisted to the point where he has to negotiate a settlement that involves him giving up a lot of ground/money/influence then Ukraine will end up Russian in the not too distant future. Whether by military means or by installing a puppet (which I think Trump would help him organise). And then all bets are off for him pushing further West. 

But there's loads of doubt in my mind and I'm always questioning myself about it. I think everyone should really. There is no absolute right or wrong here. 

And it doesn't necessarily follow that if Hitler being appeased led to World War 2 that the same thing would happen in this instance. But it's an awfully big risk if he sets his eyes on somewhere like Poland. 

 

I highly doubt he'd consider Poland

probably just the ex Soviet countries if he were to go after anyone else

3 minutes ago, Zico said:

I highly doubt he'd consider Poland

probably just the ex Soviet countries if he were to go after anyone else

If you think Russian aggression only involves Military Invasions, you're sadly mistaken.

https://news.sky.com/story/western-leaders-to-work-on-ukraine-ceasefire-and-present-plan-to-trump-says-starmer-13320007

 

 

1 hour ago, wanderer1984 said:

So once he's taken Ukraine you think he'll move on to the next country ... then another ... then another and so on?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/08/mi5-chief-uk-facing-growing-threat-from-islamic-state-russia-and-iran

He will be after the old Soviet states and continued destabilisation of NATO. He won’t invade the UK but we will feel very much weaker in that scenario and the continuation of the proxy war. MI5 also uncovered plans to bring terror to UK towns and cities by Russian and Iranian sabotage. 

45 minutes ago, Cheese said:

If you think Russian aggression only involves Military Invasions, you're sadly mistaken.

In which case he's already at it 

Assuming you mean cyber stuff 

 

1 minute ago, Zico said:

In which case he's already at it 

Assuming you mean cyber stuff 

And the rest.

Just now, Cheese said:

And the rest.

Are, they're already doing that

 

I think it was obvious that any role Europe plays here will be publicly and privately advocating on behalf of Ukraine in the hope it helps them get the best settlement rather than stepping up to plug the funding gap the US is seemingly intent on leaving in the Ukrainian war effort

But in the coming years, we should be heavily investing in our defence capabilities, perhaps most easily by the roll out of nuclear weapons programmes across several states, because hard power is what counts now

I'm not confident we will

Ps. One thing to note is that this crisis has at least put to bed the ridiculous suggestion that Brexit has left the UK isolated on the world stage because we were "out of the room"

29 minutes ago, gonzo said:

https://news.sky.com/story/western-leaders-to-work-on-ukraine-ceasefire-and-present-plan-to-trump-says-starmer-13320007

 

 

This will confuse a few on here

6 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Ps. One thing to note is that this crisis has at least put to bed the ridiculous suggestion that Brexit has left the UK isolated on the world stage because we were "out of the room"

😁 You'll be crying "Brexit Betrayal!" in the near future when Starmer starts committing to closer ties with the EU. 

17 minutes ago, Zico said:

Are, they're already doing that

Let's make it easier for them by submitting to their demands and removing their biggest distraction...

Who are these lunatics saying Trump’s invite to see the king should be withdrawn? Freaks 

16 minutes ago, wanderer1984 said:

This will confuse a few on here

Will it fck confuse anyone 😄

 Nobody thinks Trump wants the war to continue… at least nobody has said so. 
 

Starmer appears to be handling the whole thing well.

11 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Let's make it easier for them by submitting to their demands and removing their biggest distraction...

I was talking about him not invading Poland next

I don't think he will

21 minutes ago, wanderer1984 said:

This will confuse a few on here

I'm sure he does 

It's how he's going about trying to achieve it that's the issue

3 minutes ago, Zico said:

I was talking about him not invading Poland next

I don't think he will

Obviously not in the near future. But anyone who thinks a "Peace Agreement" over Ukraine means the end of Russian aggression needs their bumps feeling.

Starmer just getting on with it and working to find a solution.

trump probably playing golf and thinking of his next batshit rant

4 hours ago, bolty58 said:

I was thinking more of the bent von der Liar when I typed that.

The head honcho of the biggest mafia around.

We both know it is the way over there, hang-over from the Soviet days... all corrupt with power pyramids.

It wouldn't surprise me if whatever money we send over to Ukraine Putin will eventually get a percentage. I still wonder who is pulling the strings, the party in government started life as a media company and then became a political party fronted up by an actor... he's worked on the weights, changed his voice and walks around in battledress

3 minutes ago, Dimron said:

We both know it is the way over there, hang-over from the Soviet days... all corrupt with power pyramids.

It wouldn't surprise me if whatever money we send over to Ukraine Putin will eventually get a percentage. I still wonder who is pulling the strings, the party in government started life as a media company and then became a political party fronted up by an actor... he's worked on the weights, changed his voice and walks around in battledress

Jesus wept. Have you gone this far down the rabbit hole when it comes to the ex-reality TV star that's currently sat in the White House?

9 minutes ago, Dimron said:

We both know it is the way over there, hang-over from the Soviet days... all corrupt with power pyramids.

It wouldn't surprise me if whatever money we send over to Ukraine Putin will eventually get a percentage. I still wonder who is pulling the strings, the party in government started life as a media company and then became a political party fronted up by an actor... he's worked on the weights, changed his voice and walks around in battledress

That mask is slipping this weekend old boy.

10 minutes ago, Dimron said:

We both know it is the way over there, hang-over from the Soviet days... all corrupt with power pyramids.

It wouldn't surprise me if whatever money we send over to Ukraine Putin will eventually get a percentage. I still wonder who is pulling the strings, the party in government started life as a media company and then became a political party fronted up by an actor... he's worked on the weights, changed his voice and walks around in battledress

His previous life as an actor seems to crop up a lot. What experience is required to become a leader of a nation? History has some great examples. 
One of the most influential Presidents of the US in our lifetime was an actor. Ronald Reagan. 

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

😁 You'll be crying "Brexit Betrayal!" in the near future when Starmer starts committing to closer ties with the EU. 

I'd very much welcome closer ties, to be honest

1 hour ago, wanderer1984 said:

This will confuse a few on here

It will confuse a few on here that two Tier Kier  is stopping up on the world stage as a PM should. 
 

 

1 minute ago, Ani said:

It will confuse a few on here that two Tier Kier  is stopping up on the world stage as a PM should. 
 

 

Working at the weekend?

Hes just being a show off