• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Putin & Russia

Watch the video mikey10 posted above.
Hugely informative

When one thinks about it there's so many angles, storylines, unknowns, possibilities with the Trump/Putin dynamic....it's just going to be more straightforward to deal with the issues at hand with him/them excluded. They are dictators/autocrats, if you're not aligned, what are you hoping for?.

The strength here is Trump could serve as a catalyst for people of an opposing mindset (democracy, justice, humanity, integrity etc) to come together, mainly in outrage. People, as in leaders, plenty are lining up, speaking out. They can fill a leadership void, a void left by Trump, that tbh, I'm not entirely sure looks like anyway.

Besides...Zelenskys and Trumps relationship has been brick since the Biden stuff, it ain't recovering from that. Bet Trumpy loves hearing how great a guy and respected Zelensky' is from everyone.
 
Starmer’s response looks, diplomatically, to be the correct one right now. Shows we are aligned with our European neighbours in support of Ukraine (and partnering with France, our traditional ‘enemy’ within the EU/Europe re-enforces that we are not just going to rollover for Trump (aka Putin)) but still accepting that we need the US and need to try to win Trump around to providing the security backstops needed for any ceasefire. The challenge will come further down the line if Trump can’t be convinced, is engineering a Nobel Peace Prize for him worth it to get a peace deal that Ukraine can live with? I hate to think of giving him what he wants, but if it is all about ego - which it is - then is assuaging that ego the lesser of several alternative evils? I am not comfortable with that idea, and not sure it would ultimately work anyway if he is in Putin’s pocket, but what is the best course to obtain peace?
 
Starmer’s response looks, diplomatically, to be the correct one right now. Shows we are aligned with our European neighbours in support of Ukraine (and partnering with France, our traditional ‘enemy’ within the EU/Europe re-enforces that we are not just going to rollover for Trump (aka Putin)) but still accepting that we need the US and need to try to win Trump around to providing the security backstops needed for any ceasefire. The challenge will come further down the line if Trump can’t be convinced, is engineering a Nobel Peace Prize for him worth it to get a peace deal that Ukraine can live with? I hate to think of giving him what he wants, but if it is all about ego - which it is - then is assuaging that ego the lesser of several alternative evils? I am not comfortable with that idea, and not sure it would ultimately work anyway if he is in Putin’s pocket, but what is the best course to obtain peace?
Some seriously sick people have been given the Nobel peace prize. Think Hitler was won of them.

Agree on Starmer, he is doing well on international relations.

I loathe Trump and would not be able to hold my tongue or fists if I were in a room with him.

We obviously argue with the French on fish and stuff that does not really matter. But on the big stuff we are usually on the same side.
 
Some seriously sick people have been given the Nobel peace prize. Think Hitler was won of them.

Agree on Starmer, he is doing well on international relations.

I loathe Trump and would not be able to hold my tongue or fists if I were in a room with him.

We obviously argue with the French on fish and stuff that does not really matter. But on the big stuff we are usually on the same side.
Even boosting his ego with a Nobel Peace Prize, I don’t believe he can be trusted.to stick to the agreed terms.
I’m struggling to see a good outcome to the war that doesn’t involve the US being a bully towards Ukraine and an appeaser for Putin.
 
Starmer’s response looks, diplomatically, to be the correct one right now. Shows we are aligned with our European neighbours in support of Ukraine (and partnering with France, our traditional ‘enemy’ within the EU/Europe re-enforces that we are not just going to rollover for Trump (aka Putin)) but still accepting that we need the US and need to try to win Trump around to providing the security backstops needed for any ceasefire. The challenge will come further down the line if Trump can’t be convinced, is engineering a Nobel Peace Prize for him worth it to get a peace deal that Ukraine can live with? I hate to think of giving him what he wants, but if it is all about ego - which it is - then is assuaging that ego the lesser of several alternative evils? I am not comfortable with that idea, and not sure it would ultimately work anyway if he is in Putin’s pocket, but what is the best course to obtain peace?

I'd rather we showed some moral courage and just said we wont have international relations with fascist states.

Or perhaps lure him over here for a visit and then arrest him for all his noncing with Epstein and Prince Andrew, which hopefully MI6 have as good records of as the KGB does.
 
Some seriously sick people have been given the Nobel peace prize. Think Hitler was won of them.

Agree on Starmer, he is doing well on international relations.

I loathe Trump and would not be able to hold my tongue or fists if I were in a room with him.

We obviously argue with the French on fish and stuff that does not really matter. But on the big stuff we are usually on the same side.


Nope. Nominated as a 'joke' by an antifascist in 1939 but the nomination was cancelled.

the list isn't that shocking actually. Probably the worst people on there are people like Henry Kissinger.
 
Starmer’s response looks, diplomatically, to be the correct one right now. Shows we are aligned with our European neighbours in support of Ukraine (and partnering with France, our traditional ‘enemy’ within the EU/Europe re-enforces that we are not just going to rollover for Trump (aka Putin)) but still accepting that we need the US and need to try to win Trump around to providing the security backstops needed for any ceasefire. The challenge will come further down the line if Trump can’t be convinced, is engineering a Nobel Peace Prize for him worth it to get a peace deal that Ukraine can live with? I hate to think of giving him what he wants, but if it is all about ego - which it is - then is assuaging that ego the lesser of several alternative evils? I am not comfortable with that idea, and not sure it would ultimately work anyway if he is in Putin’s pocket, but what is the best course to obtain peace?
The main issues with it is, Trump is providing the security backstop and Putin is shaking on an agreement to stop the war.

Two solid fellas....salt of the earth.....Honest to their core.
 
I saw someone claiming the the US admin are freaking out behind the scenes about how this has backfired. They thought they would be considered the heroes for trying to put Zelensky in his place! Apparently a lot countries are discussing scrapping large military contracts with the US etc. Could be all gonads but I could see it happening.
 
I saw someone claiming the the US admin are freaking out behind the scenes about how this has backfired. They thought they would be considered the heroes for trying to put Zelensky in his place! Apparently a lot countries are discussing scrapping large military contracts with the US etc. Could be all gonads but I could see it happening.

All this talk of Trump pulling out of NATO.

I think it’s more a case of should we be kicking them out.

Same with 5Eyes, they can’t be trusted.
 
All this talk of Trump pulling out of NATO.

I think it’s more a case of should we be kicking them out.

Same with 5Eyes, they can’t be trusted.
NATO is done. Not officially but for all intensive purposes it is over.

I highly recommend this episode of Snell's podcast where he is talking to Mike Martin about the post-Munich fallout (recorded before the Zelensky/Trump debacle) and what next for NATO

This Gavin Esler interview is good too.
 
Can't comment on the bottom two - I have insufficient knowledge.

The top two:
I.
What the issue? Ukraine was massively corrupt (anecdotally it was improving). But still less so than Russia. It was making moves to more western.
Romania is currently the most corrupt country in Europe - it would still be right to protect them from illegal invasion.
That isn't a liberal value though, it's a value that transcends most political positions (maybe not fascism - you'll know better than me on that)

II.
Yes Ukraine had (has?) a Neo Nazi problem.
Other nations do too.
It's a weird statement though - there is a lot of truth that humans struggle to exist without conflict.

The statements overall within your post are not comparing similar things.
But I doubt you're capable of understanding it anyway
 
Last edited:
I saw someone claiming the the US admin are freaking out behind the scenes about how this has backfired. They thought they would be considered the heroes for trying to put Zelensky in his place! Apparently a lot countries are discussing scrapping large military contracts with the US etc. Could be all gonads but I could see it happening.

No, he's just playing 4D chess. Here's something he shared on his social network:

Many of you probably watched what took place between Donald Trump and Zelenskyy tonight. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you might be thinking to yourself, Oh my GHod, Donald Trump just screwed up.
However, let’s look at the difference between what you believe you witnessed and what actually happened.
Donald Trump has been under constant political persecution since the beginning of his first term. Over time, he has learned to be patient and calculated.
Tonight, Zelenskyy was invited to the Oval Office. However, both Trump and JD Vance knew exactly what Zelenskyy was going to do—he would use this opportunity, in front of the American people, to make a power play. Both Trump and Vance anticipated this.
When Zelenskyy began appealing to the emotions of the American people, JD Vance stepped in, accusing him of disrespecting Donald Trump. This was brilliant strategy. It’s important to understand that Zelenskyy is trying to gain access to NATO.
Trump knew this but could not allow it to happen. If Ukraine joins NATO, the U.S. would be bound by NATO’s collective defense agreement—an attack on one is an attack on all.
Now consider the larger implications: Ukraine and Russia despise each other. If Ukraine were to become a NATO member, any future skirmish between them would obligate the U.S. to enter into direct conflict with Russia. This would mean World War III. And if that happened, China would have to choose a side—they would almost certainly align with Russia.
So what you witnessed tonight was a setup. Trump and JD Vance knew that the only way to achieve peace was to strategically align, at least on the surface, with Russia. Why? Because Russia would never sign a peace treaty if Ukraine were admitted into NATO.
This is why Trump dismantled Zelenskyy’s argument. And when Zelenskyy, seeing his play failing, tried to backtrack and offer a treaty, Trump refused.
Zelenskyy’s real intent was clear—he would not agree to peace unless security guarantees were in place. But what was he actually saying? That NATO must accept Ukraine. However, Russia would never agree to peace, knowing that NATO, their historical adversary, would surround them.
Zelenskyy, Putin, and Trump all knew this. Zelenskyy, thinking he had Democrats' support, believed he could make this bold move on live television. But Trump and Vance saw right through it and outmaneuvered him.They knew that, in the short term, Democrats and the media would try to use this moment against them. But they also knew they had two years before midterms to prove their strategy was the right one. So they held their ground—brilliantly so.
Now, Zelenskyy will have no choice but to back down and accept Trump's terms. But here’s the genius part—Trump is actually protecting Ukraine without dragging the U.S. into war.
By negotiating a mineral deal, Trump ensures that Americans will be involved in Ukraine’s mining industry. This prevents Russia from launching an invasion, because attacking Ukraine would mean endangering American lives—something that would force the U.S. to respond.Trump played both sides like a master chess player. In the end, Zelenskyy will have no choice but to concede, because without U.S. support, Ukraine cannot win a prolonged war against Russia. And once U.S. companies have mining operations in Ukraine, Putin will be unable to attack without triggering massive international consequences.
Don’t underestimate Donald Trump. In this game of chess, he’s 10 moves ahead of everyone.
 
NATO is done. Not officially but for all intensive purposes it is over.

I highly recommend this episode of Snell's podcast where he is talking to Mike Martin about the post-Munich fallout (recorded before the Zelensky/Trump debacle) and what next for NATO

This Gavin Esler interview is good too.
NATO has 31 other members. It'll be a bit like the EU after Brexit. America will be back next time they get a sane president too
 
Back