egg

Easter

Good man. The deal is a shocker, and it's hard to decide what part is worse. The financial aspects are disgraceful though. - $100bn of frozen Russian assets invested "in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine", with the US receiving 50% of the profits and Europe adding $100bn in investment for reconstruction, so an American price for involvement, and the EU expected to sink cash in - there's €200bn in Russia frozen assets. Why not give all to Ukraine....the deal instead says that the rest of those frozen assets would go to a "US-Russian investment vehicle", so Russia would see some of its money come back, but with a financial benefit for the US. There needs to be a resolution to this, but not that deal.

Depends what you mean by pressure. If you mean against Ukraine, probably because they're not cunts as per Trump. Obama's rebuke and sanctions were a crap response though, ditto the rest of the west, not least us as a party to the Budapest Memorandum. This should have been nipped in the bid after Crimea, but, none of that excuses Trumps appalling conduct.

Sure, but that's not the reality. He should have, and still should, but all he's had is clandestine chats with the Russians where Christ knows what has been said.

So in a long winded way, the partial answer to my question, is that they'll continue to lose land. On that we agree. That still doesn't address how it actually ends though. I think we agree it's defeat it's defeat or capitulation. You could have just said that.

Suit

A long war is not the end. That's the big bit before the end. Do you think Ukraine will, realistically be more likely to regain land or lose more? How does things look when/if the US withdraw their direct support, and/or the "back office" support for surveillance or other Western kit? They're the realities you seem reluctant to address.

That's not the reality though. Trump won't allow his deadline to pass, then throw more money and hardware Ukraine's way. The horrible reality doesn't go away by saying what Trump should do. The west were collectively a disgrace post Crimea, and Trump has taken it to new levels.

It's a bloody awful deal, and a disgraceful carry on. I'm not sure anyone disputes that.

What a surprise, no answer. I don't misunderstand the situation. You do, and have throughout. Ukraine has been dealt the shittiest hand here, but the reality being unpleasant doesn't make it cease to be the reality. They can't win his war, even with ongoing US support. What's the answer to my question?

As things stand, how do you realistically see this ending if there's no deal? Assuming US support continues, Ukraine still won't win. If it doesn't, Ukraine are properly screwed. Like it or not, they've lost land that they can't regain, and will lose more the longer this goes on.

As much as that's the reality, the way this has been handled from the off by Trump is a disgrace. It was always going to end with a deal and land being ceded, but there's a way to do things and this is not the way.

Yep, and you'd hope so, but you never know in 2025.

That's a mixed bag. You miss the fact that Barnes got so much praise and adulation in an era when black people often didn't. Sure, there were neanderthals then, but that doesn't alter that he was incredibly popular, not least after that goal. I don't see you Beckham/Saka point. Both made mistakes and got grief. Yes, neanderthals came into the Saka grief, but fundamentally both got grief for similar reasons, not because of colour. Southgate and Pearce got slaughtered in their day, and they ain't black. Your last paragraph is just daft. The insinuation that Bazunu gets grief because of his colour is insulting and a very poor point.

John Barnes to an extent. Denise Lewis. Kelly Holmes. Successful black sports people that aren't as popular as they would like to be have personalities that can grate - ie Anthony Joshua, Lewis Hamilton, Bellingham. Colour isn't the problem, they are.

Yep. I've usually got a lot of time for Ian Wright, but there's nothing to suggest that Bellingham gets grief because he's black. He gets grief because he can come across as a bit of a billy big bollox.

Blimey, hadn't seen this. Very sad indeed. Amazingly talented, and so sad for the kids and all who loved him.

We don't know that. Sure, he's young, but he may have the necessary tools in his locker.

I'm not taking anything personally. I'm just stating that I thought your post utterly stupid. That's because it was. As was the follow up. I have no issue with you. I don't know you. I rarely take issue with you. Often the opposite. I play the post not the poster. Try it.

Yep. Hardly the high point of a dubious posting career.

The point is that your comment was crass and fucking stupid. This follow up from you is at least equally bad.

Odd post. Tice isn't Farage.

I don't particularly like a lot of the content on this thread, but I wouldn't label it homophobic. At the end of the day, it's a forum, and we all find some posts/ content/threads/posters/etc disagreeable, that's the nature of the beast. It's not difficult to avoid the thread if you want to.

Faulty (I know!)

Loved her "Farage can sod off" comment when asked how she thought he'd react.