If we stop sending weapons, eventually Russia will complete its annexation of Ukraine (probably after a long conflict costing thousands of lives). The Ukrainian armaments industry, operating in wartime conditions, ultimately cannot compete with Russia's and I don't suppose the likes of North Korea and Iran would sign up to such a moratorium.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1623591615297204225 We must confront Russian propaganda – even when it comes from those we respect This article is more than 11 months old George Monbiot The grim truth is that for years, a small part of the ‘anti-imperialist’ left has been recycling Vladimir Putin’s falsehoods
I denounce war. I denounce the invasion. I denounce Putin. I've made this clear from the beginning, over and over again.
No, he hasn't. There's not a shred of evidence provided for anything he has alleged, and the reports have been vehemently denied by the US government. He has penned nothing more than a blog post. It isn't a vetted article that's being through various editorial filters and tests at a reputable newspaper. If you make an accusation like this you'd better have the receipts, especially if your claims of recent years include things like Osama Bin Laden not carrying responsibility for 9/11, the US raid on Bin Laden being a lie told by Obama, and that Assad didn't use sarin on the Syrian people, all suggested without supporting evidence. You'll have to forgive me if I need a little more than a "trust me, bro" on this.
Trouble is, Clive, the only really acceptable 'term' is for Russia to pull the entirety its forces out of Ukraine....I don't see that happening with Putin still in power.
Yes, agree but maybe there's something that can be done. Jaw jaw is always better of course. Perhaps there's some sort of compromise that can be reached? Northern Ireland looked unsolvable for decades and in the end they managed to come up with a solution. Perhaps make the disputed regions a self governing province with its own parliament? I don't know. But I would be encouraged if they would at least try. What is really dangerous is for stupid Starmer to stand up in the house of commons and say things like "The only acceptable outcome is defeat for Putin". i.e. regime change. You can imagine that they wouldn't have got very far in NI saying the only "acceptable outcome" is defeat for the IRA or the loyalists.
Донецкая Народная Республика? Автономная Республика Крым? Луганская Народная Республика? Республика Южная Осетия? Республика Абхазия? Приднестро́вская Молда́вская Респу́блика? What could be the common thread that links these six republics... Someone ITK told me that Starmer's and Sunak's willy waving competition was because de Pfeffel's 'surpise' visit to Ukraine was exactly that a 'surprise' - no-one in Westminster knew he was going there he just upped sticks and went...
Sorry if this isn't very nuanced, but if the French crossed the Channel and were occupying Kent and Sussex, I wouldn't be in the "Jaw jaw" camp.......
I mean it'll be easy to find some sort of compromise with leaders such as this: https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1624098698669043719 Very interesting article that names the 11 Russian PMC (mercenary armies) fighting in Ukraine (one sponsored by the Orthodox Church): https://thecritic.co.uk/return-of-the-mercenaries/
"Nato chief says ‘no signs’ Putin wants peace as he issues ammunition call" Nato chief then fails to see the irony in this.
Ah, the give the bully half your lunch money, as a fair compromise, and let's hope it ends there approach.
otherwise known as the neville chamberlain approach or appeasement. im really not sure what clive expects from such an approach. it would be completely unacceptable to ukraine and its nato allies.
Well there are 'no signs' NATO wants peace either are there? And calling for more bombs to be sent to the war, is the very opposite to 'wanting peace'!
That simply doesn't track though. Sending someone weapons to defend themselves against an aggressor doesn't mean you want the war to continue. It means you want the attacked party to be able to defend themselves. NATO wouldn't be sending this weaponry to Ukraine if Russia hadn't invaded. If Russia withdrew tomorrow, the war would stop. If NATO withdrew, the war would continue. And as for Ukraine, it doesn't have a choice in the matter.
I have to write to this guy and tell him he's missing the "...NATO aggression...." trope favoured by 'some'.
Also, there is no evidence that Russia would stop at Ukraine, if it successfully took the country unopposed. Which would likely lead to further war.
I think the clue may be found in Putin's frequent reference to the break-up of USSR as being 'the major geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th Century'....implying it to be a larger catastrophe than the 2 world wars. Ukraine was clearly a constituent part of the USSR, as were the Baltic States, whilst Russia has long coveted most of Poland, no matter whether under the Tsars or Soviets or Putin. Let him win victory in Ukraine and see which are the next dominos to fall.
https://twitter.com/P_Kallioniemi/status/1625449494216163337 Big deal so what - but going down the thread you reach:
James O'Brien would argue with a lampshade if it leaned less than ten degrees to the left, and he had a cut-off switch. But like so many lefties, he is an elitist leftie gammon who thinks the working man needs him to fight his corner. When did you ever see him debate anyone seriously, or when he wasn't able to cut them off or turn them down?
Serviously, BW. WHO, except YOU, pays any attention to social media? The reach of this BS propaganda is minimal, and the only people it is reaching is fanatic extremists like you, on both sides, who try to pass it on to as many people as they can. Pay it no attention, and they will stop doing it. Serviously. Get off twitter. It may soothe you, but it is not good for you.
I've never listened to James O'Brien but for some reason I've read his book 'How to be right'. It's page after page of the most condescending, PC clap trap I've ever read. I couldn't put it down!
Is PC Claptrap one of those officers who has been sending dodgy Whatsapp messages? Can you give us an example of O’Brien’s views?
Ha ha! It's a bit difficult to provide an example without spending half a day typing. Essentially the book is broken down into some of the broad topics that callers to his talk show get worked up about - Islam, Brexit, gay rights, feminism etc etc etc. He reveals how he skilfully destroys the opinion of the morons that phone his programme by basically being smarter, more articulate and better informed than them
Given the standard of callers to phone ins, that can’t be hard as this made up one makes abundantly clear by making one up.
I did a colour match on some flooring accessories for the Russian embassy a few years ago. I hope none of the paint gets trampled in and onto my lovely oak doorbars.
I don't mind his radio show on occasion but his ego is enormous. Someone bought me that book for Christmas once, it was a terrible read, he can't write at all and it was dripping with bragaddocio.
Excellent piece on the BBC website on Putin by Steve Rosenberg: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64744197 A couple of standout points: "If he faces no resistance, he will go as far as can," believes Andrei Illarionov, President Putin's former economic adviser. "There is no other way to stop him other than military resistance." But what about talks over tanks? Is negotiating peace with Mr Putin possible? "It's possible to sit down with anyone," Andrei Illarionov continues, "but we have an historic record of sitting down with Putin and making agreements with him. "Putin violated all the documents. The agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the bilateral treaty between Russia and Ukraine, the treaty on the internationally recognised border of Russia and Ukraine, the UN charter, the Helsinki Act of 1975, the Budapest Memorandum. And so on. There is no document he would not violate." And yet in his early years in office, Vladimir Putin appeared not to view Nato as a threat. In 2000 he even did not exclude Russia one day becoming a member of the Alliance. Two years later, asked to comment on Ukraine's stated intention of joining Nato, President Putin replied: "Ukraine is a sovereign state and is entitled to choose itself how to ensure its own security…" He insisted the issue would not cloud relations between Moscow and Kyiv. As the article says, Putin was looking for a quick win to bolster his popularity ahead of the 2024 presidential elections. He thought that Ukraine would roll over and the west would turn the other cheek, just like Crimea. He was relying on appeasement and weakness and anything short of armed resistance to the invasion would have given him that. The tanking of the Russian economy and continued sanctions from the west doesn't seem to bother him at all. And any agreements he signs are for short term expedience and not for long term compliance.
Very interesting chart embedded in a tweet: https://twitter.com/Roger_Moorhouse/status/1630237930257256448 The meat-grinder must be fed (just not from metropolitan Russia):