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]

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.

[Hammer I am]

It seems IOC's grand plan is to effectively surrender to two countries at once, one of them they're not even at war with, what a statesman!

[BRANDED]

AG AG AG AG AG AG AGGGGGGG

[ironsofcanada]

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.) 

[nychammer]

As I keep saying Russia hand back the land they are occupying to Ukraine or NATA membership / Security guarantees will be provided. I suspect that Zelensky will want both. But the compromise is his and Putins to make as part of the ongoing negotiations - not sure why you are struggling to understand it!

You keeping saying that and keep asserting you live in a fantasy realm.

Russia wants neither of those options so they keep fighting.
Now what?

 

 

As unsavory as it sounds you will have to give up something to Russia to obtain a peace agreement. The alternatives  are either war we (increasing Europe) keep funding or the European nations and maybe the US  getting involved actively which sparks regional conflict or worse. 

[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?

I'm sure he'll come out of the White House waving a piece of paper and announcing peace in our fucking time?

 

[BillyJenningsBoots]

As I keep saying Russia hand back the land they are occupying to Ukraine or NATA membership / Security guarantees will be provided. I suspect that Zelensky will want both. But the compromise is his and Putins to make as part of the ongoing negotiations - not sure why you are struggling to understand it!

You keeping saying that and keep asserting you live in a fantasy realm.

Russia wants neither of those options so they keep fighting.
Now what?

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!

[ironsofcanada]

As I keep saying Russia hand back the land they are occupying to Ukraine or NATA membership / Security guarantees will be provided. I suspect that Zelensky will want both. But the compromise is his and Putins to make as part of the ongoing negotiations - not sure why you are struggling to understand it!

You keeping saying that and keep asserting you live in a fantasy realm.

Russia wants neither of those options so they keep fighting.
Now what?

[Lee Trundle]

Why would Russia hand back the land they now occupy?

[BillyJenningsBoots]

BillyJenningsBoot

Billy 

I don't care who you are.  

Just enter a Zen state, clear Trump from your mind...

Now without thinking of him or his country (visualise him being  fully America First and taking all money and influence out of Europe)


Now present your plan for peace in the Ukraine.

 

 

Capitulation is not a Peace plan its a surrender!

As I keep saying Russia hand back the land they are occupying to Ukraine or NATA membership / Security guarantees will be provided. I suspect that Zelensky will want both. But the compromise is his and Putins to make as part of the ongoing negotiations - not sure why you are struggling to understand it!

[ironsofcanada]

Nag reminds us as to how we should learn from history and sometimes it seems to repeat itself.

Like Hitler and Stalin divided Poland to suit their aggressive needs, in September 1939,  the carve up of Ukraine to suit the Putin and Trump needs is an echo from more than eighty years ago. This carve up, like the previous one mentioned, shows no consideration as to the needs and desires of the citizens affected and what is even worse is that neither of this nasty duopoly will feel any compunction in breaking their agreement.

 

 

Yes comma, let's repeat some history

1) Like the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, a modern deal between the States and Russia is a secret pact that no one in other governments and the press (and thereby the Ukraine citizens it affects) has heard  of until well after it came into play...oh wait.
2) Like the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, this modern deal comes before any fighting started was not part of a peace structure to stop an existing, bloody war...oh wait.
3) (really the only one that needs to be considered) Like in the time of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the parties involved do not have nuclear weapons and thankfully those weapons do not change dramtatically the dynamic in enforcing a dissolution of such an agreement...oh wait. 

So yes comma, carbon copy of the 1939 world power dynamic. 

But I really do appreciate you letting us know the "needs and desires" of Ukranian people.  Where did you get that information?

1) The most sure indicator would surely be elections, which Zelensky held when they were supposed to be  both for president and parliament...oh wait.

2) But in the really strange case where elections did not happen, based on polling done in November of last year, 52 % of Ukrainians would not give up land to bring peace ...oh wait. 

[BRANDED]

Russia and Ukraine should do a Korea. 

The USA doesnt really win wars, it makes business for businesses.

Anyone who doesnt understand this is a child

Do a Korea in which way?  Divide things up where and how?  Or go to war and bring in a bunch of our kids to be killed and then divide it up?

How about a Vietnam?

Stop fighting, draw a line and get on with life.