Meanwhile in Ukraine

[Tonge moor green jacket]

9 hours ago, royal white said:

There is no circle argument. You think Ukraine have to bow down to the Don and do as he says (even though the war has been going on for 3 years and he’s only been in power 5 mins) they don’t. VZ is the countries leader and it’s his call. 

Disingenuous at best.

[gonzo]

7 hours ago, wanderer1984 said:

It's a CULT!!!!

Surely you understand why people say this?

It's normally thrown out there when a set of people agree and back absolutely everything a leader/football club/politician says or does. Which is often the case when it comes Trump.

Even if there's swathes of evidence or foresight to the contrary people still back him on particular issues. Very much like a cult.

It's like people have to agree with everything he does just because they like him.

You seem a clever a bloke, surely in your heart of hearts can see just giving Russia what they want and forcing Ukraine in giving up areas of their country they've had stolen by force and killing lacks a little forward thinking and is just appeasement in an already dire situation?

Surely you can seen, although it may be labelled as peacekeeping by default because it will stop tanks rolling, letting a country invade another and not face any consequence is a dangerous president to set globally?

Surely you can see it's not right? Even morally?

Surely you don't think Trump and Vances behaviour towards Zelensky at the white house was acceptable? And essentially strangling him and his country into just giving up and accepting being invaded and having it's children murdered?

You can agree with Trump on some stuff but not other stuff you know.

I do. I'm with him all the way on the trans in sports and I'm partial to a plastic straw. 

I'm not however cool with bowing down to another global superpower just to save some cash and gain some one upmanship on a former president.

[BobyBrno]

Morning. Hard work reading through this. I think only RW has mentioned Europe. Starmer is to hold a virtual meeting today with 25 countries (Don’t think the US is one of them) a ‘coalition of the willing’ he calls it. Is he wasting his time because most on here seem to know which way it’s going?

[Spider]

Starmer working again.

Its becoming a habit

[Bertie]

7 hours ago, wanderer1984 said:

Trumps a bit thick ... no education and never read a book ... certainly never brought one out.

Not true - he’s said multiple times that The Bible is his “favourite book”*.  You probably knew that though given the way he lives his life, demonstrating such values as tolerance, respect and compassion.

(* just don’t ask him to name his favourite verse in public though 🙄)

[boltonboris]

2 minutes ago, Spider said:

Starmer working again.

Its becoming a habit

UK are Russia’s “public enemy number one” which probably shows he’s on the right side of things 

[London Wanderer]

1 hour ago, gonzo said:

Surely you understand why people say this?

It's normally thrown out there when a set of people agree and back absolutely everything a leader/football club/politician says or does. Which is often the case when it comes Trump.

Even if there's swathes of evidence or foresight to the contrary people still back him on particular issues. Very much like a cult.

It's like people have to agree with everything he does just because they like him.

You seem a clever a bloke, surely in your heart of hearts can see just giving Russia what they want and forcing Ukraine in giving up areas of their country they've had stolen by force and killing lacks a little forward thinking and is just appeasement in an already dire situation?

Surely you can seen, although it may be labelled as peacekeeping by default because it will stop tanks rolling, letting a country invade another and not face any consequence is a dangerous president to set globally?

Surely you can see it's not right? Even morally?

Surely you don't think Trump and Vances behaviour towards Zelensky at the white house was acceptable? And essentially strangling him and his country into just giving up and accepting being invaded and having it's children murdered?

You can agree with Trump on some stuff but not other stuff you know.

I do. I'm with him all the way on the trans in sports and I'm partial to a plastic straw. 

I'm not however cool with bowing down to another global superpower just to save some cash and gain some one upmanship on a former president.

It has been blatantly obvious that they think his approach has been acceptable.

 Both RW & W1984 have been defending or deflecting it from the beginning. 
 

I can understand why folk would like some of Trump’s policies & his eagerness to meet election promises. But seeing intelligent people defending his approach to Ukraine (& add the Gaza plan to that too) is just beyond ridiculous.

Grown men defending a man who’s pandering to a dictator, whilst lashing out at an invaded sovereign nation & suggesting a bit of mild ethnic cleansing. 

 You’ve got to be blinded by cult like obsession over Trump if you’re not seeing the danger he’s putting everyone in with this approach.

You can add his climate denial agenda & handling of the economy to that as well.

Things like threatening to destabilise Greenland is just seen as him ‘getting a bit carried away’. 

[Not in Crawley]

1 hour ago, London Wanderer said:

It has been blatantly obvious that they think his approach has been acceptable.

 Both RW & W1984 have been defending or deflecting it from the beginning. 
 

I can understand why folk would like some of Trump’s policies & his eagerness to meet election promises. But seeing intelligent people defending his approach to Ukraine (& add the Gaza plan to that too) is just beyond ridiculous.

Grown men defending a man who’s pandering to a dictator, whilst lashing out at an invaded sovereign nation & suggesting a bit of mild ethnic cleansing. 

 You’ve got to be blinded by cult like obsession over Trump if you’re not seeing the danger he’s putting everyone in with this approach.

You can add his climate denial agenda & handling of the economy to that as well.

Things like threatening to destabilise Greenland is just seen as him ‘getting a bit carried away’. 

But apparently he serves a nice burger, so that's got to go in the plus column.

I'm not sure they even back Trump, a bit like Bolty, they just like him because he seemingly annoys people 'they don't like' which as a political position is not only moronic, it's playground level childish.

[wanderer1984]

1 hour ago, gonzo said:

Surely you understand why people say this?

I think it's used on here as way of disagreement without any explanation.

Disagree and its a clut. It reminds me of when the words racist, right wing, gammon etc are being thrown about.

1 hour ago, gonzo said:

Even if there's swathes of evidence or foresight to the contrary people still back him on particular issues.

People on here or in general? You'll have to give me some examples. I don't search and look for everything the guy does.

1 hour ago, gonzo said:

It's like people have to agree with everything he does just because they like him.

The same can be said for those that don't like him ... disagree with everything he does or says.

 

2 hours ago, gonzo said:

surely in your heart of hearts can see just giving Russia what they want and forcing Ukraine in giving up areas of their country they've had stolen by force and killing lacks a little forward thinking and is just appeasement in an already dire situation?

Surely you can seen, although it may be labelled as peacekeeping by default because it will stop tanks rolling, letting a country invade another and not face any consequence is a dangerous president to set globally?

Surely you can see it's not right? Even morally?

Ive said on here before I don't think it's right mate. None of what Russia have done is. Don't think I've seen anyone on here agree that taking land is ok. Its Shite.

I keep seeing this "What Russia want"

What is it they want? Where are the lines being drawn? What's been negotiated with them? Does anyone apart from @Not in Crawley know?

What's a realistic alternative to this month long ceasefire? Surely it's a good start going forward no?

What would be a suitable consequence in your eyes? Troops in the ground from US & Europe? Looking back I think that should of happened at the start.

Great Post btw

 

[Spider]

17 minutes ago, wanderer1984 said:

I think it's used on here as way of disagreement without any explanation.

Disagree and its a clut. It reminds me of when the words racist, right wing, gammon etc are being thrown about.

People on here or in general? You'll have to give me some examples. I don't search and look for everything the guy does.

The same can be said for those that don't like him ... disagree with everything he does or says.

 

Ive said on here before I don't think it's right mate. None of what Russia have done is. Don't think I've seen anyone on here agree that taking land is ok. Its Shite.

I keep seeing this "What Russia want"

What is it they want? Where are the lines being drawn? What's been negotiated with them? Does anyone apart from @Not in Crawley know?

What's a realistic alternative to this month long ceasefire? Surely it's a good start going forward no?

What would be a suitable consequence in your eyes? Troops in the ground from US & Europe? Looking back I think that should of happened at the start.

Great Post btw

 

So you think Russia are wrong

But you also think they should keep the spoils of their illegal invasion?

Can you see how people might think you’re a bit confused?

[Not in Crawley]

17 minutes ago, wanderer1984 said:

I think it's used on here as way of disagreement without any explanation.

Disagree and its a clut. It reminds me of when the words racist, right wing, gammon etc are being thrown about.

People on here or in general? You'll have to give me some examples. I don't search and look for everything the guy does.

The same can be said for those that don't like him ... disagree with everything he does or says.

 

Ive said on here before I don't think it's right mate. None of what Russia have done is. Don't think I've seen anyone on here agree that taking land is ok. Its Shite.

I keep seeing this "What Russia want"

What is it they want? Where are the lines being drawn? What's been negotiated with them? Does anyone apart from @Not in Crawley know?

What's a realistic alternative to this month long ceasefire? Surely it's a good start going forward no?

What would be a suitable consequence in your eyes? Troops in the ground from US & Europe? Looking back I think that should of happened at the start.

Great Post btw

 

This idea that any ceasefire under any terms is a good thing is baffling, and generally made by Trump apologists.

[Not in Crawley]

Just now, Spider said:

So you think Russia are wrong

But you also think they should keep the spoils of their illegal invasion?

Can you see how people might think you’re a bit confused?

It's a nonsensical position, but if you start backing Populists, it leads people down these blind alleys so they are constantly trying to perform mental gymnastics to justify it.

[wanderer1984]

14 minutes ago, Spider said:

But you also think they should keep the spoils of their illegal invasion?

Where have I said that mate?

[wanderer1984]

14 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

This idea that any ceasefire under any terms is a good thing is baffling, and generally made by Trump apologists.

Strange post 

[Not in Crawley]

Just now, wanderer1984 said:

Strange post 

It's really not. 

[kent_white]

Also - just a quick reminder that posting on this forum tends to make people sound more extreme than they are in person. 

And that every single person that I've met off WW had been absolutely brilliant in real life. 

[Not in Crawley]

2 minutes ago, wanderer1984 said:

Where have I said that mate?

In your defense of Trumpington and his 'negotiations'

[wanderer1984]

5 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

In your defense of Trumpington and his 'negotiations'

What's Trump negotiated? 

[BobyBrno]

Still wondering how this virtual meeting that Starmer is presently involved in affects the dynamics of the peace negotiations. 26 countries and VZ involved, US and Russia not. 

[Spider]

26 minutes ago, wanderer1984 said:

Where have I said that mate?

That’s clearly the position VZ is being backed into by Trump and Putin.

[Spider]

17 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

Still wondering how this virtual meeting that Starmer is presently involved in affects the dynamics of the peace negotiations. 26 countries and VZ involved, US and Russia not. 

Better to have everyone talking than not.

Unless you think they’re discussing the football

[London Wanderer]

1 hour ago, Spider said:

So you think Russia are wrong

But you also think they should keep the spoils of their illegal invasion?

Can you see how people might think you’re a bit confused?

In a nutshell 

[BobyBrno]

1 hour ago, Spider said:

Better to have everyone talking than not.

Unless you think they’re discussing the football

Of course it is. I was asking how it will affect the dynamics of the talks as everyone seems to be ignoring it. 
An operational update here from VZ. Seems the Ruskies are building up forces on the border with Ukraine again. 

 

[Spider]

1 hour ago, BobyBrno said:

Of course it is. I was asking how it will affect the dynamics of the talks as everyone seems to be ignoring it. 
An operational update here from VZ. Seems the Ruskies are building up forces on the border with Ukraine again. 

 

Putin doesn’t seem to be preparing for a ceasefire.

The guys a fucking lunatic and Trump seems to think he can reign him in.

Sadly, I don’t think he can.

starmer has just said the “coalition” is moving to prep a military stance now, which I think is the only way to deal with Putin. At least make him think the west is playing good cop/bad cop.

He needs to know he has no friends.

[royal white]

4 hours ago, wanderer1984 said:

Where have I said that mate?

He probably getting you mixed up with London wanderers