Russia

[badgerx16]

10 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

So people against this proposal….what is the alternative you suggest? Keep on fighting with waning us political backing

As stated previously, Trump grows a pair. His problem is that he idolises 'strong' leaders; Putin, Xi, even Kim Jong Un, and likes to view himself as being their peer. The problem is that they are lifelong political animals, and have experience and manipulative skills he will never have.

Edited 19 hours ago by badgerx16

[Colinjb]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Very loose and too general to be a policy. Specifically what does this mean and how realistic is this? 

This is a global issue. Russia are bullying a sovereign nation and it's being allowed to happen.

The alternative is Europe and the USA growing a pair.  

I fear your use of the word realistic is appropriate. This doesn't stop here.

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

 

What do you ultimately think the Ukraine will be able to achieve? There seems to be some pie in the sky thinking that Putin will give up Ukrainian terroritory altogether or just keep crimea. That will never happen so what is the real and realistic solution? It’s easy to criticise but a well balanced alternative wins the day

Ukraine alone cannot acheive much, Ukraine with the right level of international political will can blunt Putin's expansionist amibitions. A well balanced alternative would take back some, if not most, of what Russia has occupied since 2014, and ensure that Russian aggression cannot be aimed at anybody else. Putin must have his claws trimmed, but left with a get out that doesn't embarass him completely.

[Sir Ralph]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Ukraine alone cannot acheive much, Ukraine with the right level of international political will can blunt Putin's expansionist amibitions. A well balanced alternative would take back some, if not most, of what Russia has occupied since 2014, and ensure that Russian aggression cannot be aimed at anybody else. Putin must have his claws trimmed, but left with a get out that doesn't embarass him completely.

Fair response and I agree with most of what you say. I think the question is how robust is the agreement. Personally I think any concession on territory should only be agreed is Ukraine (remaining) becomes part of nato, otherwise no deal

[aintforever]

38 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

So people against this proposal….what is the alternative you suggest? Keep on fighting with waning us political backing

Forcing a deal that doesn’t involve Ukraine handing over more territory and cutting Ukraine’s forces in half would be a start.

Caving in to Russia is only going to cause more problems in the future.

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Forcing a deal that doesn’t involve Ukraine handing over more territory and cutting Ukraine’s forces in half would be a start.

Caving in to Russia is only going to cause more problems in the future.

I agree - I’ve read some more of the heads of terms than the original reports I had seen and actually (hands up) it has elements that are too pro Russian. It’s too weak a deal. Cutting your defence and not being part of nato (if you concede land) are not acceptable. Europe needs to back Zelensky if this is the best offer Trump can get (yes I’ve changed my tone after reading the full HoTs)

Edited 19 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[sadoldgit]

Ukrainians are talking about fighting on with shovels. Kind of puts into perspective the a-hole who is trying to sell them down the river who bottled out of fighting against Communism due to “bone spurs.” 

[Turkish]

15 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Ukrainians are talking about fighting on with shovels. Kind of puts into perspective the a-hole who is trying to sell them down the river who bottled out of fighting against Communism due to “bone spurs.” 

Russians did that nearly 3 years ago

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64855760

kind of puts into perspective how utterly clueless you are about something you’re regularly spouting off about 

[badgerx16]

6 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Ukrainians are talking about fighting on with shovels. Kind of puts into perspective the a-hole who is trying to sell them down the river who bottled out of fighting against Communism due to “bone spurs.” 

 

6 hours ago, Turkish said:

Russians did that nearly 3 years ago

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64855760

kind of puts into perspective how utterly clueless you are about something you’re regularly spouting off about 

Russian soldiers have carried double edged shovels for close quarters combat since WW1. It is standard practice, and the weapon is known as the MPL-50.

Edited 12 hours ago by badgerx16

[egg]

7 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

I agree - I’ve read some more of the heads of terms than the original reports I had seen and actually (hands up) it has elements that are too pro Russian. It’s too weak a deal. Cutting your defence and not being part of nato (if you concede land) are not acceptable. Europe needs to back Zelensky if this is the best offer Trump can get (yes I’ve changed my tone after reading the full HoTs)

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.