True but also not true as many of the repeats are actually a lot better than some of the current stuff.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Saying something is your own analysis is fair enough I will respect that.

I will however contend on a few points.

Firstly that our intelligence agencies are a good judge of Russia reactions.....To that I say, hardly. Nato enlargement hasn't been good for Europe in terms of safety and has drawn it into Balkan disputes once again....all inspired by US hegemonic cold war feuds with Russia that is again bad for Europe.

As for this, 'standing by our principles' stuff.

Really? Principles?

I would suggest that if it were 'principles' then the west wouldn't be dealing with the House of Saud and many other horrible regimes around the world.

So I regard this, 'lets be warlike with Russia' because it isn't liberal and Putin doesn't play ball as just unrealistic and not proven by general policy.

It isn't about principles at all....If a regime is pro American then they are left in peace....If they are anti American the CIA starts flooding them with NGO money, funding for opposition groups and attempting 'colour revolution'.

The only principle is whether you are a US client state or not.

The fact that Russia wants to control border states and ensure that they don't become a starting off point for military action against it is....well, it's exactly the same behaviour America would show itself.....The Cuba missile crises being the evidence of that.

I'll say again, something I learnt early on when researching this. Ukraine is five hours drive to Moscow.....Nuclear Missile reaction times become impossible in such a situation....Russia drawing a red line on a confrontational Nato expanding closer and closer to it was always going to end with Ukraine....Farage warned about it but importantly it wasn't only Farage.

One more point...this point that Ukraine wanted this war.

Again, research into this showed that Zelensky was elected on peace with Russia, he literally promised it. He didn't do that and instead he sucked up to whatever the Americans wanted....He didn't stay neutral and that has destroyed the country.

He's been protected from elections and Ukrainians haven't been given a choice....and deliberately so as Blinken said in a recent speech....No opposition to the war is allowed...they won't get a vote until the war is over...men are press ganged from the street......They were told one thing and policy was another.

The media has lied to them about the war being winnable and now they face a far worse outcome than would have been possible if those idiots Biden and Johnson had come to terms in 2022.

Once again, western taxpayers will be expected to foot the reconstruction bill for Ukraine once the war is over.....the working and middle classes having to pay for a war enabled by elites and people who just don't think much.

Some of us were pointing out the madness of this war at near the start of it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2024 9.59pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

But there were a large number of Russian leaning population in the east who probably had more loyalty to Russia than to Ukraine. Stories differ as to what was happening to them/how they were treated and hence an excuse emerged, like the Sudetenland. Probably similar to Tower Hamlets or Southall…lol

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

Whilst we might not always, as individuals, approve of the West’s principles they are still their principles. Not necessarily ethical or moral in the purest sense but designed to serve what is believed to be our best interests. Realpolitik is real.

Supporting the Saudis sticks in my craw too but it’s done for a reason. Just as allowing the Eastern Europeans to join NATO and the EU.

There are very straightforward ways to reassure Russia and show that NATO has no intention of doing anything except defend its members. Treaties could be signed which forbade the stationing of offensive weapons within set distances of borders.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Nonetheless, Courting Ukraine to join the EU and talking up its right to join NATO was dumb.

No super power is going to tolerate an enemy right on its border.
The Americans didn't and Russians didn't. You can be anti Putin and still be anti stupid.

From all I have seen all the ”courting” has been by Ukraine and NATO has been quite restrained in its responses. Nevertheless, a sovereign nation faced with a bully on its border has every right to join with its allies to deter aggression.

There is no need for NATO to be viewed as an enemy, when its purpose is purely defensive. Ensuring that message is clearly communicated, obviously true and universally understood is challenging but vitally important. More work is certainly needed in that area.

Conflating the Cuban missile crisis with the Ukrainian situation is inaccurate. The aggression in both came from Russia. The USA was not, and is not, threatening Russia. They are helping Ukraine defend itself.

The EU talking to Ukraine about possible membership is a natural development of their transition to a liberal democracy which offers no threat at all to Russia.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Brilliant. The questioner didn't like those two answers, did he?

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

I know what Putin claims and spreads as propaganda to his own people. Which is why we must make it unequivocally obviously untrue with every action we take on every stage we occupy. So things like positioning nukes in Turkey must only be done if a threat exists and be accompanied by comprehensive, far reaching, justification. Trying to overthrow someone like Castro would not happen today in the way it did, unless offensive weapons were again a threat.

I don’t think the USA would deliberately start an expensive arms race for fun. They would only do it if it was necessary and based on intelligence.

What is good is a matter of opinion. What matters is what is necessary.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I think TOBIAS needs to have a rectifying download from his programmer. As Artificial Intelligence goes, he is not a good advert for it.

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

Exactly. Since the Monroe Doctrine was declared US Foreign policy is not to tolerate any anti US government near it's borders. To that end they have interfered in Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, and have supported dictatorships in Argentina and Brazil and many others. The US also kicked Spain out.

As for Cuba an invasion was launched from US shores to topple Castro so why wouldn't he look for help in supporting his regime.

All Russia is doing is the same as the US, the west are hypocrites for not recognising that.

Edited by Badger11 (24 Jun 2024 11.33am)

Edited by Badger11 (24 Jun 2024 11.35am)

One more point