egg

Assuming there's a bona fide case for asylum, where do you say they should be booted out to? The place where they were originally fleeing from?

Bill

Disgraceful Disgraceful I'm still amazed that people refuse to acknowledge that the behaviour of both sides is appalling. They don't have to be equally bad to do that. That said, Hamas behaviour today was a disgrace, but there's no denying that watching the bombing of Gaza as if it's a spectator sport is appalling. Nobody should be celebrating the deaths of innocent people.

Absolutely this. It must be collective though, all of Europe, Australia, NZ, and other sensible democracies. I think the next week or so is going to be very interesting though, and I think we'll see some unexpected alliances.

The answer was in SoG's link. Donny's rating is well below Zelensky's. His ego will be all bruised by that and Zelensky telling the world what we all know.

I'd love to know Donny's popularity rating in the US now. I'd hazard a guess it's lower than Zelensky's.

I think it's more of a Trump/Putin relationship, and a shared support of authoritarianism and push back against democracy. Zelensky rightly hit back against Trump, and he's reacted with both barrels. What matters now is the reactions of leaders of civilised democracies, but I think there will be some very interesting alignments coming up.

Will we be seeing BRICSUSA+ anytime soon?

Jesus fecking Christ. The bloke has lost it. If he ever had it. "Zelensky better move fast or he is not going to have a country left," US President Donald Trump says in a post on Truth Social. Labelling Zelensky "a dictator", Trump writes: "I love Ukraine, but Zelensky has done a terrible job, his country is shattered, and MILLIONS have unnecessarily died." Trump has also taken a swipe at Europe, saying the war in Ukraine is "far more important to Europe than it is to us". "We have a big, beautiful ocean as a separation," he says. He adds that Europe has "failed to bring peace" in the region.

People are in love with the notion that we're stronger than we are, and that stronger nations are weaker than they are. Realism has been lost on many.

Cap in hand. Behave. They have a supply line that Ukraine don't. If he need the goods, and get them, it doesn't matter whether anyone else respects your dealer.

Exactly. People on here are not playing the tape forward with realism. People point to North Korean arms support as a negative, but the reality is that they supply more than us and Europe. Throw Iranian and Chinese supply on top and we're massively out produced.

I think you're overlooking the inevitably for Ukraine. They are losing with US support, and will lose without it. Despite your optimism, Europe cannot arm Ukraine, and if they try to do so, they'll be left with next to nothing. European support without the US for an ongoing war just won't happen imo. The harsh choice for Ukraine is concede on the least unfavourable terms or fight on and lose more. Europe will be boxed into an uncomfortable corner - back a concession or fund and potentially man a fight. This will end the way it was always going to, albeit in a manner nobody expected courtesy of mad Donny.

Morally they shouldn't, but in reality they will. If they fight on without US support they'll lose a hell of a lot. If the rest of Europe support them they'll struggle, and the rest of the Europe will be left so depleted doing so that they'll be vulnerable. They'll do a deal that involves the ceding of some land as the lesser of two evils.

There is no doubt they're weaker, but I'm not persuaded they're weaker (at least personnel wise) than Europe. There's also no doubt that Europe are significantly weaker hardware wise, and that Russia have been able to replenish moreso than Europe. We can't get away from the fact that we've been told that we need to boost European military big time to out muscle Russia. The US hold the aces here, and sadly they have a leader willing to shaft everyone else to get what he wants.

You've said similar throughout. I'm not sure that even our military leaders share your confidence.

To an extent, yes, but Trump wants a bit of Ukraine and to get that he needs Russia out of the way, thus it seems to be a chat to see what Russia will take to get out and stay out. I think it's more a mutual nest feathering exercise than PR.

That's all assumption. Unless and until we're told what principles were discussed today, we won't know current positions and whether any concessions were given or indicated as a possibility. That said, I'm convinced that Ukraine will get absolutely shafted in this, and will retain 'sovereignty' but at enormous financial expense. The latter will come with security guarantees of sorts assuming it gives US financial guarantees. Russia get land, US get to to rape and pillage Ukraine, and Ukraine remains but will be about as free as a caged canary.

Unusually we agree. The fact is that NaTo have not been a threat to Russia. Nor have Ukraine. The two combined wouldn't be, unless Russia attacked and NATO Ukraine came to it's rescue.

How do you know their demands before today, and now? That said, i think today was probably little more than a surface scratching exercise anyway.

Alas, yes.

I hadn't seen this... insane. "Revealed: Trump’s confidential plan to put Ukraine in a stranglehold. Panic in Kyiv as US president demands higher share of GDP than Germany’s First World War reparations. Donald Trump’s demand for a $500bn (£400bn) “payback” from Ukraine goes far beyond US control over the country’s critical minerals. It covers everything from ports and infrastructure to oil and gas, and the larger resource base of the country. The terms of the contract that landed at Volodymyr Zelensky’s office a week ago amount to the US economic colonisation of Ukraine, in legal perpetuity. It implies a burden of reparations that cannot possibly be achieved. The document has caused consternation and panic in Kyiv. The Telegraph has obtained a draft of the pre-decisional contract, marked “Privileged & Confidential’ and dated Feb 7 2025. It states that the US and Ukraine should form a joint investment fund to ensure that “hostile parties to the conflict do not benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine”. The agreement covers the “economic value associated with resources of Ukraine”, including “mineral resources, oil and gas resources, ports, other infrastructure (as agreed)”, leaving it unclear what else might be encompassed. “This agreement shall be governed by New York law, without regard to conflict of laws principles,” it states. The US will take 50pc of recurring revenues received by Ukraine from extraction of resources, and 50pc of the financial value of “all new licences issued to third parties” for the future monetisation of resources. There will be “a lien on such revenues” in favour of the US. “That clause means ‘pay us first, and then feed your children’,” said one source close to the negotiations. It states that “for all future licences, the US will have a right of first refusal for the purchase of exportable minerals”. Washington will have sovereign immunity and acquire near total control over most of Ukraine’s commodity and resource economy. The fund “shall have the exclusive right to establish the method, selection criteria, terms, and conditions” of all future licences and projects. And so forth, in this vein. It seems to have been written by private lawyers, not the US departments of state or commerce. President Zelensky himself proposed the idea of giving the US a direct stake in Ukraine’s rare earth elements and critical minerals on a visit to Trump Tower in September, hoping to smooth the way for continued arms deliveries. He probably did not expect to be confronted with terms normally imposed on aggressor states defeated in war. They are worse than the financial penalties imposed on Germany and Japan after their defeat in 1945. Both countries were ultimately net recipients of funds from the victorious allies. A new Versailles If this draft were accepted, Trump’s demands would amount to a higher share of Ukrainian GDP than reparations imposed on Germany at the Versailles Treaty, later whittled down at the London Conference in 1921, and by the Dawes Plan in 1924. At the same time, he seems willing to let Russia off the hook entirely. Donald Trump told Fox News that Ukraine had “essentially agreed” to hand over $500bn. “They have tremendously valuable land in terms of rare earths, in terms of oil and gas, in terms of other things,” he said. He warned that Ukraine would be handed to Putin on a plate if it rejected the terms. “They may make a deal. They may not make a deal. They may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday. But I want this money back,” he said. Trump said the US had spent $300bn on the war so far, adding that it would be “stupid” to hand over any more. In fact the five packages agreed by Congress total $175bn, of which $70bn was spent in the US on weapons production. Some of it is in the form of humanitarian grants, but much of it is lend-lease money that must be repaid." https://archive.is/0El3f

Desire

But you want loads of our laws repealed, seemingly without being able to explain why.

Thanks for the explanation. None of that explains why you feel the need to rip up a raft of existing legislation. What you're saying is that you'd like changes to achieve an end that you support. That's a different thing to repealing and starting again which you had said that you support. What's wrong with a right to family life? You enjoy it, and presumably you'd want to have laws that allow it to continue. It's use is wide reaching. Example, a woman refusing to finalise a divorce years after separation, whereas the bloke wants to move on and remarry. That's a family life - why shouldn't that bloke have a law which permits his right to the family life he wants? If you'd like to see it's use moderated or clarified, fine, but I'm struggling to see a reasonable objection to the principle. I agree that immigration numbers are too high and unsustainable. But we have a skills shortage and absolutely need controlled legal immigration to address that.