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.

[dealcanvey]

Is this the same Trump that said he could end the war in a day if he is elected President?

Give your head a wobble. This will be going on for 2025 atleast.

[Leavemyarcelona]

All those supporting Ukraine, you all going on the frontline?

[Lee Trundle]

All part of the plan from the start it seems. The reporter prodding Zelenksy about not wearing a suit was just to get the ball rolling.

It certainly makes Ukraines position even weaker. This will push Putin on. Europe will step up. 

It keeps the war going. None of this saves the lives that Trump is pretending to care about.


 

Trump only cares about ending this war, by whatever means.  He promised a rapid end to this war, and that appears is what he's trying to do.

A politician delivering on his promises really seems to wind people up.

[dealcanvey]

All part of the plan from the start it seems. The reporter prodding Zelenksy about not wearing a suit was just to get the ball rolling.

It certainly makes Ukraines position even weaker. This will push Putin on. Europe will step up. 

It keeps the war going. None of this saves the lives that Trump is pretending to care about.

 

[Nutsin]

Trump has stopped all aid to Ukraine.

 

[MaryMillingtonsGhost]

With the exception of Belarus, Georgia and Azerbaijan, all countries bordering Russia to their West are members of NATO.
Even Putin isn't thick enough to invade a NATO member.
So he chose an 'easy' non-NATO target, under the guise of 'protecting' Russias border from a NATO expansion
However by doing so the little runt now runs the risk of extending the Motherlands border (assuming the cսnt want's ALL of Ukraine under his yolk) with other NATO members. Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Poland.
Sorry, I take back my original statement.
Putin must be at best thick as pigshit, at worst an egotistical warmongerer.

[Jaan Kenbrovin]

+++

In the end he will stop killing Ukrainians and accept an imbedded US presence in country next to him. The reality is again he is in a stronger position.  

+++

the 3 day war to dispose the pro Western government has turned into 3 year one. Hundreds of thousands Russians dead. Estimated USD 750 million Russia have spent per day of the war. Kursk region invaded by Ukraine itself. Needing troops from North Korea to help try to dispose them. 6 months later they are still there.

Will have to make do without disposing a western leaning government and accept a US presence in Ukraine itself?

the reality of a stronger position? 


 

The 3 day war was actually a western claim. The same western media also call it a war of attrition, and suggest Putin doesn’t want a peace deal and wants to invade more of Europe.

The reality is after 3 years of Ukraine there doesn’t seem to be any actual sign of Russia invading anywhere else. And despite the sanctions Russia have become the largest economy in Europe.

Ukraine is bankrupt, don’t have the man power or weapons to make any impact in a counter even if the US continued to chuck money at it, and the Kursk invasion has been a dreadful decision.

NATO was never really an option, nor was EU membership for Ukraine, due to the widespread corruption that saw it deemed the second most corrupt European nation after Russia.

The whole thing has been utterly disastrous for the benefit of absolutely no-one.

[ironsofcanada]

"The deal has "security" in it a number of times in writing. If Zelensky wanted to try and sell that, he could.  He obviously doesn't want to. "

Let's hope the "security," is worth more than the security Ukraine was given when, it gave its nukes, back to Russia.

If you see the context of that, you will surmise that I agree with you.

That's why getting real American interests, with a supply line, people and money imbedded in Ukraine is the real security to me.

[Eerie Decent]

So Putin DEFINITELY WON'T use the mass of nuclear weapons at his disposal, but he DEFINITELY WILL try to take over the whole of Europe unless Trump threatens him.

I'm warming to this idea. Worth a gamble.

[Westside]

"The deal has "security" in it a number of times in writing. If Zelensky wanted to try and sell that, he could.  He obviously doesn't want to. "

Let's hope the "security," is worth more than the security Ukraine was given when, it gave its nukes, back to Russia.

[ironsofcanada]

the reality of a stronger position? 


 

We can count losses on both side, Russia will always have more in reserve, unless other countries put boots on the ground for the Ukraine.
It is selling its resources lots of places (even laundered into Canada), it not going run out of money like we hoped.
They have taken land the Ukraine has not.

If it really needed peace, the US would not be required to bring it to the table. 

That's the reality of it.

[dealcanvey]

+++

In the end he will stop killing Ukrainians and accept an imbedded US presence in country next to him. The reality is again he is in a stronger position.  

+++

the 3 day war to dispose the pro Western government has turned into 3 year one. Hundreds of thousands Russians dead. Estimated USD 750 million Russia have spent per day of the war. Kursk region invaded by Ukraine itself. Needing troops from North Korea to help try to dispose them. 6 months later they are still there.

Will have to make do without disposing a western leaning government and accept a US presence in Ukraine itself?

the reality of a stronger position? 

 

[honky cat]

As someone earlier said, the war was lost the day russia invaded. 

Russia will keep the land and the yanks will take the minerals. The EU/UK will fill their boots with  the rebuilding contracts and whatever is left.
He cant turn around and admit to his people its all been futile, so there'll be a bit of face saving and posturing before signing it all away 'with a heavy heart'.

​​​​​​



​​​



 

[ironsofcanada]

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?

The deal has "security" in it a number of times in writing. If Zelensky wanted to try and sell that, he could.  He obviously doesn't want to. 

The deal guarantees in writing the US presence and interest in the area.   Again I think the actual mineral supply, money, people and politics of it are stronger guarantees.

"What is Putin's compromise?"
Putin will probably give up some what he has taken, minor bits.  Not the parts he made about "denazification" and "protecting Russian speakers," that would be very politically damaging. 
In the end he will stop killing Ukrainians and accept an imbedded US presence in a country next to him. The reality is again he is in a stronger position.  

[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.