- Aug 24, 2020
- 8,576
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)
- Thread starter vegster
- Start date
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
Anyone know if this was a proverbial or royal we?
Always a little worrying when someone feels they represent a great body of people. If lasvegan is genuinely a representation of what we don't know about America, god help us.
fly high
Well-known member
Should Britain contribute to this fund if it wants our arms companies to get orders from it, absolutely (provided no other strings attached) that is only fair.
Should European countries increase their defence spending in the face of Russian aggression. Absolutely or would you rather wait until the Russian army is at our borders having conscripted hundred of thousands of Ukrainian men by putting guns to their heads & threatened their family. Europe has been cutting defence spending for the last 30 years naively believe the threat from Russia was gone for ever. They were very, very wrong.
No country is about to attack Russia but time & time again they threaten us. I guess you think we should just sit back, do nothing & accept our fate.
- Jan 25, 2025
- 887
But who is that someone? If Starmer says it, any Trump retaliation could be extremely damaging.
Last week, FT reported that Europe is working on a 5-10 year transition plan for NATO. See https://archive.is/HiAks.
Quote:
Publicly calling him out at a time when Europe’s dependency on the US is still so high would be utterly reckless.
Like it or not, Europe is now in an abusive relationship with a malignant narcissist. To exit that relationship as intact as is possible, you don’t start that process by telling the narcissist how awful they are.
Much as we’d like the temporary catharsis, we’ll be relying on media commentators to provide that for the foreseeable.
It doesn't matter if you split the total aid from the UK and EU into different segments, the fact is that they're all donating a lot. Under Biden, the US was too, but now under Trump he not only wants to get paid for what they send, but he wants to get paid for the aid that was freely given in the past.
Well the arms have to come from somewhere and the US are putting limitations on how Ukraine can use their weapons so where else are Ukraine going to get them from? They're hardly going to get them from China are they.
No we don't need time, the facts already prove I'm right. Starmer and Macron are not doing the same as Trump. Trump has looked to profit from this as soon as he took charge, which is also completely different to how Biden was dealing with things.
Ideally we'll have several options on where to spend the EU's defence. It would be good if German weapons are also available, the more the merrier.
You said the leaders are breaking their own rules, and then quoted the Guardian saying they can do it without breaking their rules? But whether they're having to break their own rules is not relevant to the point we're discussing. Trump doesn't care what happens to Ukraine and its people he just wants to profit, whereas Starmer and Macron want Ukraine to win the war and remain a free country, even though it will cost us.
GoldstoneVintage
Well-known member
Vance is a right c*** too! Sorry, I know it's not strictly relevant but he doesn't have his own thread. 
Rdodge30
Well-known member
- Dec 30, 2022
- 1,117
I said Macron wanted the money for French arms deals and Starmer wanted it for British arms deals and you said I was wrong? Now you agree Macron wants the money for French arms deals and claim you’re right?
Starmer has already pledged British money separately to the EU arms fund
He has been told that under no circumstances will uk arms be purchased with that fund UNLESS he contributes to it- so only time will tell if he wants the money for British arms then he will no doubt join the fund….when he clearly doesn’t need to for any other reason than to do a British arms deal.
On the funding you are quite right, I should’ve said bypassing not breaking- astonishing to me that the only thing that governments can bypass their own strict fiscal rules for is arms deals, not people living in poverty healthcare etc.
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
The UK can’t add to the EU fund …. as we aren’t in the EU.
The UK has kit that will be needed in Ukraine and we also work with other EU based defence companies to provide kit/solutions. So directly no but indirectly we will.
As for fiscal rules. They are not set in stone and I would argue the present turmoil takes precedence.
What exactly is your issue and where is your suggestion of what should be done?
You criticise but add nothing which is trolling ….
No, you've become confused. You have tried to claim that Trump, Macron and Starmer are all the same (wanting to profit from this war) and you're mistaken. Trump doesn't mind if Ukraine loses half its land, or even if Ukraine ceases to exist and the people are all subjugated, as long as he can get a good deal out of it. In contrast, Macron and Starmer want Ukraine to win, even if it costs their countries money. It's the polar opposite of Trump.
There's a couple of reasons why the EU should switch from US arms to European arms. The goal for Macron and Starmer is to defend Europe from Russia's aggression. To do this, Europe needs to increase their production of arms. It's not easy to just increase the production of these arms if there are no buyers, so it makes sense if the money Europe are giving/loaning to Ukraine is spent on European weapons, to increase production and prepare Europe for further Russian aggression. The next reason for doing so is that Trump wants to limit our ability to use US weapons. Why on earth would we want US weapons if they can't be fully utilised against Russia?
Evidence that I'm right can be seen through the other EU leaders, whose goal is to provide help to Ukraine and restrict Russian aggression. They're doing it for exactly the same reasons as Macron and Starmer, despite not having their own weapons to sell (although Italy could also be selling weapons due to joint ventures with France).
Well that's good.
It's good if the EU are pressuring the UK to help with the fund because Ukraine need all the help they can get. You're wrong to say Starmer clearly doesn't need to contribute for any other reason - the other massive reason is because it helps Ukraine, and the UK have a history of doing that (as did the US until Trump came along). If Starmer agrees (and I hope he does) it proves he wants to help Ukraine. There are plenty of countries who've donated aid to Ukraine, regardless whether or not they also have arms to sell.
They meant that because the Presidents of America had met with the leader of another country, then they're just as bad as Trump. I think.
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 8,348
That's how I understood it, words are important
Rdodge30
Well-known member
- Dec 30, 2022
- 1,117
I honestly just gave my opinions on the world leaders involved.
My opinions differ from the groupthink on this thread.
Lots of people quoted my post and then someone said that everything was about me on here and that was what I wanted.
I responded to a couple of posts that were quoting me.
I’m really not trolling anybody, I just wouldn’t do that, and I’m certainly not criticising anyone on here. I’m talking about heads of state.
On the subject of solutions, like absolutely everyone else I do not know what the answer is, I have no solution to offer for the Russia Ukraine war …. but I don’t feel that should prevent me from giving my opinions.
To be honest I am genuinely shocked that absolutely everyone on here thinks Zelenskyy is a good guy
- Nov 15, 2006
- 6,498
I am shocked that anyone can see anything but Russia being the instigator of this clusterfuck.
Luckily Zelensky has been f***ing strong and driven in stemming the takeover. There are no good guys but there are two guys much worse than Zelensky
Anyone on here think anything other than posturing and bullshit is going to come out of these “peace talks”? Putin and Trump‘s end game is carving up Ukraine
Zelensky will do all he can to stop that happening.
Last edited:
Nobby
Well-known member
- Sep 29, 2007
- 3,012
He may be a bad guy.
But on the scale of bad guys he’s down the bottom
Top of of the list is a snidey cynical ruthless ex KGB officer who now wields ultimate power of life and death in own country - oh and a few other countries too.
So on the bad guy scale I think Zelensky is very close to the bottom - and based on all the evidence that we see every day - he’s not on it at all
Can’t honestly work out how anyone with a brain or a sense of decency can think otherwise?
- Jan 25, 2025
- 887
Happy to remind you that I didn’t say that.
I don’t know if he’s “a good guy” but I do know I’d pick him in an instant over Putin or Trump in a “who do I trust more” competition.
Also happy to state for the record that I don’t think you’re trolling, albeit I disagree with a lot of your arguments. But please don’t accuse those who disagree with you of groupthink. I’ve spent more time than I care to admit researching, factchecking and listening to different points of view in order to refine my own.
Many of us have spent a lot of time keeping up to date on the war, and on some key areas we have come to the same conclusion. You're trying to play that down as simple 'groupthink', as if we don't have our own minds. I don't know if you genuinely think that, or if you're just taking the piss. You could just as well claim that the earth is flat and when we all disagree just claim that we're guilty of groupthink.
When so many people disagree with you, you could perhaps take a step back and consider the possibility that you may be wrong.
If you're genuine, then as above, take a step back and try to understand why we disagree with you. It's certainly not groupthink, because if you spend any time on NSC you'll learn that we rarely agree with each other about anything.
Because that's what the evidence says. Given that he's stood up to Putin, he's probably surprised he's still alive. It would have been much less risky and more profitable for him to do a Lukashenko, cosy up with Putin and become a billionaire like Putin (who may be the richest man on earth having stolen so much from Russia). What evidence do you have that he's a bad guy?
- Jan 25, 2025
- 887
Would this count as attacking Ukraine’s infrastructure? 
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
So in a summary you don’t have any ideas on a solution but you are giving an opinion on Zelensky based on what exactly?
Zelensky country has been been subject to invasion, bombings, loads of civilian deaths but apparently for trying to protect his people and ensure the future of Ukraine, he’s a bad guy and should be roped in with Putin and Trump.
I’m genuinely shocked that you would consider that makes him a bad person … where have you been for the last three years …. The Kremlin.
Tell you what why don’t you give us a quick breakdown on why he’s not a good guy? Hint: failing to get a cease fire isn't answer when considering he has to deal with a genocidal prick who is more than happy to bomb civilians and kidnap children.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 13,052
Zelenskyy is a good guy..Brave, principled, honest and puts his country and people before his personal ambitions.
He's not perfect, nobody is, but it's genuine that 75% of Ukrainains, on the front line support him.
My wife sees him as we might have seen Churchill 80 years ago. A symbol of definiance and courage against powerful evil forces.
Of course, there are many uninformed people who don't take the view of Ukrainans themselves, or have much depth of knowledge and they will find a plethora of deliberate demonisation, false accusation (like dictator), or baseless accusations of corruption.
All of which is spread ny evil men without character and their propagandists , and designed to undermine the character of the only with any character. Because he's a block to their evil desires.
There has been no war leader in my lifetime who is more brave, more heroic, more principled and more worthy of praise than Volodomyr Zelenskyy.
But then I'm seeing it through Ukriainians eyes and with respect, probably a little deeper knowledge of those who try to undermine him, how they do it and why.