The Official Politics Thread (enter at your own risk)

[Come On You Irons]

There. Resident WHO political commentators and gurus can knock yourselves out in here and conduct your endless bickering. All other threads will be locked.

[ironsofcanada]

The point is, you said that "Britain and its continental allies could have wiped the floor with what Germany had for a miltary."

 

 

Did you realise your mistake with your post after? - fair enough. 

Please read what I said, in '35, 36' or even 38' they would have wiped the floor with the German military.

Not in Dunkirk - 1940. 


For instance, a couple of the important tanks they used to drive the Allies to Dunkirk were Panzer 35(t) and 38(t)  - orginally the Czech LTvz. 35 and 38.  -  Better than their Panzer I and IIs.  They picked those up in '38 (Munich agreement) and the early 39' full annexation.  Both examples of appeasement. 

[ironsofcanada]

Ofcourse Zelensky should be making demands. It’s his country that will be the centre of any peace negotiations. Even if the demands are near impossible .

 

 

I guess there's the rub.

If the demands are "near impossible"  then insisting on them make it nearly impossible to stop people dying in a war.

There is a perfect world and the world we live in. 

[Far Cough UKunt]

That's my lot for now I'm boring myself.

It's catching you see.

[BillyJenningsBoots]

I don't claim its not a thing - but why should Zelensky sign an agreement that does not assure him of Ukraine's security. If Ukraine do all the mining and there are no US companies on the ground - he may rightly feel no security at all! Were there no US Companies in Ukraine when Russia invaded and that didn't stop them. It's all just a bit tenuous isn't it and I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise.

A contract is a contract and if it doesn't state the conditions for the agreement it's too late when one party reneges later! But Trump could easily put that in to the agreement - so why doesn't he? What is stopping him from including the assurances that would help Zelensky sign it - is it his agreement with Putin that would contradict it?

And just because Russia broke the Nuclear Trilateral agreement doesn't mean you shouldn't include security in future agreements. If Trump is he is as strong as he says he should re-enforce it not backdown!

 

1) Trump does not want American boots on the ground in the Ukraine. I think that is what security guarantees means to him (and why he doesn't want to say that.)  And ultimately, he is right.  What does a guarantee mean? You will intervene if someone attacks the Ukraine again -  with troops.  We have been doing all the other punishments already.

He waffles on a lot things and says stupid stuff but one thing I legitmately support him on his general move to get American troops off the world stage.  We can talked about boys dying but also it has been so abused with little gained over the last 80 years. 

2) He has specifically talked about American "people" in the Ukraine after the deal. That is part an "automatic guarantee" to him.


Mate, honestly statements  like "If Trump is he is as strong as he says he should re-enforce it not backdown!" says you are not trying to work in reality.  You are in the realms of "ifs".  Again we need actual solutions that we think will end a war. 

 

 

Yes to him its an "automatic guarantee" I see that - I've not disputed that. The problem is Zelensky doesn't see it - he can't go back to Ukraine having signed a peace deal with no security guarantees in writing. That is his position and I can understand why he is hesitant - he needs guarantees.

"If Trump is he is as strong as he says he should re-enforce it not backdown!" Hey its easy to give it all away to appease Putin it's tough trying to convince Putin to compromise.

What is Putin's compromise?

[Far Cough UKunt]

 

You obviously have never heard of Dunkirk?

I'm not defending appeasement, Chamberlain thought he had no leverage hence his appeasement policy, which a lot of it was down to he and a lot of other politicians didn't want another Somme and the like where Britain lost a whole generation in pointless trench warfare but the Germans struck brilliantly with Blitzkrieg negating any trench warfare and it was very successful in the early days.

Dunkirk in 1940 - yes?... Not sure your point.

It occurred after the Nazis built up the Blitzkrieg forces, you mentioned, over years of appeasement.  

I know the rationale for appeasement and my ancestors were English in WWI (though Canada suffered horribly as well of course) and some still in WWII.

I am glad we agree he had leverage but he chose not to apply for the often political reasons you have outlined.   And the humanitarian ones.  These decisions are not easy, especially without highsight.

 

 

The point is, you said that "Britain and its continental allies could have wiped the floor with what Germany had for a miltary."

Well Dunkirk puts that fable to bed doesn't it?

Eventually, we WERE able to put out a sizable land army but only after the Americans joined the fight after Pearl Harbor.

We were able to hold our own at sea because up to that point the Royal Navy was the largest in the world. 

[BRANDED]

Do you really lose wars? I mean you can "win" two world wars and lose the fucking peace.

[dealcanvey]

Ofcourse Zelensky should be making demands. It’s his country that will be the centre of any peace negotiations. Even if the demands are difficult . That’s the whole process of a negotiation. Aiming for the best terms possible. Russia are doing exactly that. 

zelensky has Trump undermining him at every turn for the whole world to see. You can believe that is to stop the war as quickly as possible to save lives or, to start mining Ukranian minerals.

I believe the later and he will do that at the expense of Ukraine and their people.

[ironsofcanada]

 

You obviously have never heard of Dunkirk?

I'm not defending appeasement, Chamberlain thought he had no leverage hence his appeasement policy, which a lot of it was down to he and a lot of other politicians didn't want another Somme and the like where Britain lost a whole generation in pointless trench warfare but the Germans struck brilliantly with Blitzkrieg negating any trench warfare and it was very successful in the early days.

Dunkirk in 1940 - yes?... Not sure your point.

It occurred after the Nazis built up the Blitzkrieg forces, you mentioned, over years of appeasement.  

I know the rationale for appeasement and my ancestors were English in WWI (though Canada suffered horribly as well of course) and some still in WWII.

I am glad we agree he had leverage but he chose not to apply for the often political reasons you have outlined.   And the humanitarian ones.  These decisions are not easy, especially without highsight.

[ironsofcanada]

I don't claim its not a thing - but why should Zelensky sign an agreement that does not assure him of Ukraine's security. If Ukraine do all the mining and there are no US companies on the ground - he may rightly feel no security at all! Were there no US Companies in Ukraine when Russia invaded and that didn't stop them. It's all just a bit tenuous isn't it and I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise.

A contract is a contract and if it doesn't state the conditions for the agreement it's too late when one party reneges later! But Trump could easily put that in to the agreement - so why doesn't he? What is stopping him from including the assurances that would help Zelensky sign it - is it his agreement with Putin that would contradict it?

And just because Russia broke the Nuclear Trilateral agreement doesn't mean you shouldn't include security in future agreements. If Trump is he is as strong as he says he should re-enforce it not backdown!

 

 

1) Trump does not want American boots on the ground in the Ukraine. I think that is what security guarantees means to him (and why he doesn't want to say that.)  And ultimately, he is right.  What does a guarantee mean? You will intervene if someone attacks the Ukraine again -  with troops.  We have been doing all the other punishments already.

He waffles on a lot things and says stupid stuff but one thing I legitmately support him on his general move to get American troops off the world stage.  We can talked about boys dying but also it has been so abused with little gained over the last 80 years. 

2) He has specifically talked about American "people" in the Ukraine after the deal. That is part an "automatic guarantee" to him.


Mate, honestly statements  like "If Trump is he is as strong as he says he should re-enforce it not backdown!" says you are not trying to work in reality.  You are in the realms of "ifs".  Again we need actual solutions that we think will end a war. 

[Far Cough UKunt]

Chamberlain didn't have any leverage, he was hoping appeasement would prevail, luckily Churchill didn't have the same outlook.

The UK didn't have an army to speak of, our ace in the hole was the mighty Royal Navy but unfortunately in a land war they're not much good. 

 

So you are defending Chamberlain appeasement because "he had no leverage"

I think that is rubbish. 
In '35 (Anglo-German Naval Agreement) or even '36 ( remilitarization of the Rhineland), Britain and its continental allies could have wiped the floor with what Germany had for a miltary. Still in the case in '38 with the Munich Agreement.   Plenty of leverage in the early days.  

 

 

You obviously have never heard of Dunkirk?

I'm not defending appeasement, Chamberlain thought he had no leverage hence his appeasement policy, which a lot of it was down to he and a lot of other politicians didn't want another Somme and the like where Britain lost a whole generation in pointless trench warfare but the Germans struck brilliantly with Blitzkrieg negating any trench warfare and it was very successful in the early days.

[Lee Trundle]

Why would Russia hand back the land they now occupy?

Why should Zelensky give up any hope of joining NATO/guaranteed security?

 

 

Where have I said he should?

Zelensky is in no position to make any demands though.  He lost this war as soon as Russia invaded.  That's what you need to realise.

[ironsofcanada]

Chamberlain didn't have any leverage, he was hoping appeasement would prevail, luckily Churchill didn't have the same outlook.

The UK didn't have an army to speak of, our ace in the hole was the mighty Royal Navy but unfortunately in a land war they're not much good. 

 

 

So you are defending Chamberlain appeasement because "he had no leverage"

I think that is rubbish. 
In '35 (Anglo-German Naval Agreement) or even '36 ( remilitarization of the Rhineland), Britain and its continental allies could have wiped the floor with what Germany had for a miltary. Still in the case in '38 with the Munich Agreement.   Plenty of leverage in the early days.  

[BillyJenningsBoots]

I said it was a starting point from which you negotiate. Not giveaway everything you've got like your plan! You keep believing that Zelensky will give up territory and membership of NATO without concrete security guarantees - welcome to fantasyland!

 

So no actual plan you think will work. Let's keep 'em dying.

Zelensky is in the weakest postion of the parties in question, if he wants to honour his people's desire for peace, he will realistical have to give up the most. 

(We have discussed security guarantees, having a the US with a massive imbedded presence and counting on your resources is a huge one.  You pretend that is not a thing.) 

 

 

I don't claim its not a thing - but why should Zelensky sign an agreement that does not assure him of Ukraine's security. If Ukraine do all the mining and there are no US companies on the ground - he may rightly feel no security at all! Were there no US Companies in Ukraine when Russia invaded and that didn't stop them. It's all just a bit tenuous isn't it and I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise.

A contract is a contract and if it doesn't state the conditions for the agreement it's too late when one party reneges later! But Trump could easily put that in to the agreement - so why doesn't he? What is stopping him from including the assurances that would help Zelensky sign it - is it his agreement with Putin that would contradict it?

And just because Russia broke the Nuclear Trilateral agreement doesn't mean you shouldn't include security in future agreements. If Trump is he is as strong as he says he should re-enforce it not backdown!

[ironsofcanada]

Why should Zelensky give up any hope of joining NATO/guaranteed security?

Because he wants to see his people stop dying.  Again he is in the worst postion of the parties. 



You can not give me a plan when people stop dying.  Especially without Trump.  Until you can pretending people have power who don't is really silly. 

[ironsofcanada]

 

you don't have to "soundly defeat" Russia you just have to make it clear to them they can have their gains, but they cannot take another step west without consequences. Those consequences are increased support from US and Europe, doesn't even need to be boots on the ground. they don't have the power to overcome that, unless you think they're willing to go to nuclear war of course....

 

 

You don't think setting up shop next to them tells them that the States don't want them moving further?

But ultimately all the ageements have to be backed by force/consequence when push comes to shove. Or someone will chose not to follow them, without issue. 

Here's where Zelensky defeated your (and his point) about security guarantees. (Why I don't really think that is all he was asking for).

Did you watch the part that lead up to the (in)famous "JD what kind of diplomacy?" moment?  He was saying that Putin made an agreement with Ukraine and broke it.  Ie. a kind of security agreement.  So he was shooting down the idea of diplomacy. 
That is what security guarantees are: diplomacy.  I agree with Zelensky on that point.  You need something else, like a monetary and political interest in the country. 

[Far Cough UKunt]

=12.35px"...luckily Churchill didn't have the same outlook."

Yes, I look around Britain today and think my dead uncles would be thrilled they sacrificed their lives for such a paradise. 

Nurse, indeed, what the fuck was it all for?

[BillyJenningsBoots]

Why would Russia hand back the land they now occupy?

 

Why should Zelensky give up any hope of joining NATO/guaranteed security?

If Russia really wanted to stop the war they could tomorrow - but they will only end it on their terms so lets face it we all know Putin and Trump have cooked up a plan and he's sticking to it!

Putin is a bully and Trump seems to think thats a great trait in a leader. But he could take a different angle and try to convince Putin to backdown, to negotiate some of the land to keep, reject NATO membership for Ukraine and give Ukraine real assurances on Security.

[Nurse Ratched]

=12.35px"...luckily Churchill didn't have the same outlook."

Yes, I look around Britain today and think my dead uncles would be thrilled they sacrificed their lives for such a paradise. 

[ironsofcanada]

. The security is that bobby joe with 3 teeth who has an American passport is mining the resources for the USA.


 

 

 

If we want to dehumanise Americas, what's to stop them from doing that to the Ukranians. 


But to the I have said this before. In a perfect world, Russia gets punished or at least not rewarded for invading a sovereign country.

But the world is not perfect and sometimes you take that which stops the most people dying.

Trump obviously values the resources in the Ukraine (he can't stop talking about how little he values all the resources he gets from Canada as a counter example.)  He talks so much about it, it has become political capitial.  So if he lets Russia invade while that deal is place, he is losing the mineral, any money, Americans might be in danger and he takes a massive political hit.  

That is the real world.

[Hammer I am]

It seems Iyawnsofcanada, has all the fucking answers, what say we tell Zelensky baby to take a back seat at the next summit in the White House and insert the aforementioned, IyawnsChamberlain




 

 

Nice to see you FC.  Bringing out the old "Iyawns" guns.  Classic, mate.


But we can't pretend we are living in 1939 - (What was it like then?) The world is very different. 

Chamberlain had the potential power (with his alliances of the time) to soundly defeat the burgeoning Nazi regime, in the years that lead up to WWII.  So if he had taken a stand in a number of instances earlier, he had the real military might enforce that stand.  Appeasements happened and German power grew.  

We (whoever we is) cannot soundly defeat Russia unless we are willing to go to nuclear war.  We don't have the leverage that Chamberlain had and did not use. 

 

 

you don't have to "soundly defeat" Russia you just have to make it clear to them they can have their gains, but they cannot take another step west without consequences. Those consequences are increased support from US and Europe, doesn't even need to be boots on the ground. they don't have the power to overcome that, unless you think they're willing to go to nuclear war of course....

[Far Cough UKunt]

It seems Iyawnsofcanada, has all the fucking answers, what say we tell Zelensky baby to take a back seat at the next summit in the White House and insert the aforementioned, IyawnsChamberlain



 

 

Nice to see you FC.  Bringing out the old "Iyawns" guns.  Classic, mate.


But we can't pretend we are living in 1939 - (What was it like then?) The world is very different. 

Chamberlain had the potential power (with his alliances of the time) to soundly defeat the burgeoning Nazi regime, in the years that lead up to WWII.  So if he had taken a stand in a number of instances earlier, he had the real military might enforce that stand.  Appeasements happened and German power grew.  

We (whoever we is) cannot soundly defeat Russia unless we are willing to go to nuclear war.  We don't have the leverage that Chamberlain had and did not use. 

It doesn't have to go nuclear, you think Putin would be that stupid, his country would cease to exist. 

Chamberlain didn't have any leverage, he was hoping appeasement would prevail, luckily Churchill didn't have the same outlook.

The UK didn't have an army to speak of, our ace in the hole was the mighty Royal Navy but unfortunately in a land war they're not much good. 

[ironsofcanada]

It seems Iyawnsofcanada, has all the fucking answers, what say we tell Zelensky baby to take a back seat at the next summit in the White House and insert the aforementioned, IyawnsChamberlain


 

 

 

Nice to see you FC.  Bringing out the old "Iyawns" guns.  Classic, mate.


But we can't pretend we are living in 1939 - (What was it like then?) The world is very different. 

Chamberlain had the potential power (with his alliances of the time) to soundly defeat the burgeoning Nazi regime, in the years that lead up to WWII.  So if he had taken a stand in a number of instances earlier, he had the real military might enforce that stand.  Appeasements happened and German power grew.  

We (whoever we is) cannot soundly defeat Russia unless we are willing to go to nuclear war.  We don't have the leverage that Chamberlain had and did not use. 

[Lee Trundle]

Don't you lot find it weird that the USA rejected the minerals deal then?

Their stance is that it's impossible to have an economic deal without a peace deal.

[Hammer I am]

I think Ukraine should let Trump sort out a peace deal with Putin. In return they get to hand over billions of dollars worth of minerals. The security is that bobby joe with 3 teeth who has an American passport is mining the resources for the USA.

Putin wont dare move on bobby joe. He can take the rest of the Ukraine though, just not the mines that America have a claim over. 

Zelensky also has all the assurance he needs because Trump is not having private phone calls with Putin, nor is Trump keeping Ukraine out of their own ceasefire and peace talks with Russia.

When Zelensky visits the white house and is welcomed with open arms, it will assure him even more that Trump is the man to save the world.



 

"Putin wont dare move on bobby joe. He can take the rest of the Ukraine though, just not the mines that America have a claim over"

That's the important part, Putin may not want to risk harming bobby joe, but bobby joe won't be mining in Kyiv, So are you saying Zelensky's country could effectively be reduced to the parts where US is actively mining? Not much of a deal then!. 

Edit, sorry think i had an irony failure

[dealcanvey]

I think Ukraine should let Trump sort out a peace deal with Putin. In return they get to hand over billions of dollars worth of minerals. The security is that bobby joe with 3 teeth who has an American passport is mining the resources for the USA.

Putin wont dare move on bobby joe. He can take the rest of the Ukraine though, just not the mines that America have a claim over. 

Zelensky also has all the assurance he needs because Trump is not having private phone calls with Putin, nor is Trump keeping Ukraine out of their own ceasefire and peace talks with Russia.

When Zelensky visits the white house and is welcomed with open arms, it will assure him even more that Trump is the man to save the world.