Replacing previous thread which has continuing page count issues.
Previous Thread
Previous Original Thread:
Threabanned posters:
brickstser69
slay55
mulbot
Ukraine,s only hope is they ,ll get help from Europe missiles tanks or planes and there might be some peace negotiations done by some European coalition with Ukraine present .Trump is completely pro Putin he always wants access to minerals that are necessary for tech companies and other corporations.He despises Europe as weak and obsessed with regulation of tech company's .trump is going to benefit greatly by his pro crypto currency stance which is not line with eu policy's.
I think there,ll have to be peace negotiations as Ukraine has not got the resources or manpower to continue the war for years .Russia is able to evade sanctions to some degree by various methods .
I don't think Russia will agree, they will pretend to discuss, and pretend to do a deal, all the while rebuilding for another attack. The answer to your question, "What then?", is we keep doing what we are doing now, only more so - keep supporting and supplying Ukraine with the means to push Russia back.
Trump on the telly again tonight - usual verbal diarrhoea. Can’t help thinking his hogging of the headlines is also about taking the spotlight off GAZA where Israel is once more blocking Aid and destroying Palestinian homes in the West Bank. Trump knows the media and knows it cannot multi task - he wants fairness and no people dying -
except in Gaza.
The only option then for Ukraine and Europe is to maintain the pressure on Russia until they run out of money.
Everything requires Putin's agreement.
It's his war, he can stop it at any moment. Or not.
Europe is dealing with the reality of the war (Ukraine must be increasingly supported) and the reality of any potential peace (at a minimum it must provide Ukraine with the security that Putin won't just use the time to rearm and re-attack)
The problem with Europe's proposal is that they require Russia's agreement as well otherwise a peacekeeping force can not be placed in Ukraine.
Even if Trump did an about turn and backed Europe's proposals for European peacekeepers with a US contingency plan I'm not sure it's even likely the Russians would agree to that.
If they don't agree to it, what then?
There is no "deal" that can be done that can be trusted, as far as Trump and Putin are concerned. Trump has spent a lifetime in business shafting anyone he can in every way possible. You can only trust him to try to shaft you. Putin signs agreements and uses them to buy time, as soon as it suits him he claims the other side has broken the deal in some way and invades/attacks/whatever all over again.
What's worse, it's not just Trump and Putin as lying, evil bastards to be dealt with separately - it seems obvious to me that there is collusion between them. Having TASS in the oval office for the ambush on Zelenskyy, Trump repeating Putin's propaganda, pulling the cybersecurity resources tackling Russian hackers, and much more - we MUST assume that Trump and Putin have an arrangement of sorts to put the squeeze on Europe. Trump is digging Putin out of a hole, and he's only getting started.
I don't know if it will ever get so far as the USA actually attacking EU countries directly (heaven forbid), but just by cooperating with Russia, removing sanctions, opening trade with Russia, and being obstructive with anything NATO related, Trump can make life very difficult for us. And I would not be looking to China for any help either, they will happily let us go under, do a deal with Trump on Taiwan, or just take it anyway, and then look to see what other bits of the world they can grab while everyone else is busy.
We have Fico and Orban inside the EU but behaving as Kremlin agents, difficult decisions are needed to protect ourselves from treachery from the likes of them too.
If we want to prepare for worst case scenarios, we need to start now, and anyone talking about waiting for a deal to emerge, or waiting for a peace deal to be done, is just playing into Putin's hands.
That's my take on it, anyway…
Absolute hypocrisy from Trump and Vance, spouting lies and accusing Zelensky of disrespect when they have repeatedly referred to Canada as the 51st state and its prime Minister as Governor Trudeau!
Trump is either in serious personal financial trouble and annoyed that he didn't get his 500 billion mineral deal across the line or that he has failed his puppet master Putin.
Not a chance in hell of Putin agreeing to NATO troops in Ukraine, He will press ahead on Ukraine.
This narrative that Zelenski should resign is dangerous and clearly driven by US/Russia. I note Sky news keeps mentioning it today. The man is a legitimately elected leader and that’s a matter for the Ukrainian people and them alone. Even if they managed an election during a war he’d probably win by a large margin but we all know what would happen then (rigged blah blah blah).
Correction
Trump and his sycophants have done a dirty deal.
There a fair few Americans pi**ed off with his embarrassing treatment of an ally in preference to the old enemy.
Putin actually does this as way of buying time.
Either way how many people would act calmly to an utter contemptible moron like corporal vance spewing utter lies, never mind trump.
Ghandi would have ended up doing his nut with those clowns.
People talk about Trump wanting Europe to spend more on defense, contribute more to NATO when really what he wants is Europeans to buy more American tanks, aircraft, etc all the while thanking him for the privilege and licking his fat ass.
I think Macron has said it, Europe needs to ramp up defense industry and now.
Of course France does have a defense industry and the likes Airbus Defense and Dassault will be rubbing their hands in glee, but other countries like UK have BAE Systems, Italy has Beretta, Finmeccanica which includes likes of Augusta Westland and Aermacchi, Austria has Steyr, Germany have likes of H&K, KMW, MAN, Sweden has Saab, Hagglunds, Bofors.
So it is possible to remove reliance on US for lots of things.
Big thing that should be done is immediately is to go into massive drone production.
Ukraine has proven you don't need attack helicopters, warthogs or anything else to deal with armoured columns given the right conditions.
Time for Europe to ditch American kit and buy local. That will screw America more than any speech, any photo ops.
Also immediately release the billions of Russian frozen assets held in Belgium to use for Ukraine.
And it is time that Irish copped on, we have to form a proper military to offer some protection for ourselves and as part of a greater European initiative.
The shyteology about neutrality is pedaled by all the main political parties that ever been in power precisely because it excuses them for treating what military we have like shyte.
It is pedaled by others like shiners and leftists because it is in their DNA to always hate anything that could be seen as being pro Western.
There is a new world order and we either help protect Europe as we know it, for all it's wants, warts and blemishes or we roll over and be a vassal state at the mercy of clowns in the US who are puppets for the guy in Russia.
Europe are not going to put up with our bullcr** any longer.
Crimea in 2014 was the Rhineland of 1936. A stop could have been put to it right then, but no, no one had the balls.
After invasion Ukraine was crying out for military equipment, but Europe dithered and now look where we are.
History repeats itself, again and again.
You cannot reason with some people and eventually it gets nasty.
As it is there are no doubt bleak economic times ahead because the clown in white house together with his minions don't appear to know how modern world trade operates.
It would be ok if he just destroyed his own country, along with the gobshytes that voted for him and the gobshytes that did nothing for years to field someone half decent to beat him, but he will also destroy, even if only economically, half the world before he is finished.
Problem now is the little corporal hillbilly next in line is probably a more dangerous fooker.
so, if Russia /US reject the Starmer /EU peace proposal then it is the US / Russia want to continue the war !
https://bsky.app/profile/maks23.bsky.social/post/3ljifpkdwjs23
The orange stain has been posting again!
I think this is definitely a possibility. If Russia isn't a threat to America is China a threat to Europe?
More Putin from Donald. He will not "put up" with Zelensky much longer! What does he mean? Kill him? Support Putin militarily? Stop all military assistance?
If I was Zelensky I wouldn't trust any US devices that could reveal my location.
Let it be known…
Presumably this is on the back of a negotiated agreement.
What those on the far right can't get their heads around (whether by accident or more likely design) is that the plan Europe is coming up is to give Ukraine security guarantees so as to ensure there will not be a future war. This is specifically designed to secure peace, not declare war which I suppose would make up to some extent for not admitting Ukraine into NATO.
Anyway the point is my reading of this is that British and French (and whoever else) forces would not go to Ukraine until an agreement is reached, and Starmer himself said yesterday that of course this agreement would have to include Russia.
What I'm wondering is whether Article V would apply if in the future Russia attacked British and French forces in Ukraine? This is obviously why Starmer and Macron want a US backstop to prevent Russia from doing this. Maybe there'll be a fudge along the lines of Article V only being triggered if homeland UK or France is attacked.
Would Putin ever agree to this? Well presumably this is where Trump comes in. He may still be useful in this crisis, but I have my doubts about his motives. But actions speak louder than words, and in fairness as we speak the Ukrainians still have permission to use American weapons including the ATCMs (at least I haven't heard anything to the contrary) so let's see what happens.
Tell us, who actually killed those civilians? Ukraine or Russia?
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123228342#Comment_123228342
Having British troops and planes providing a military security guarantee in Ukraine after a peace agreement would be complete defeat for Putin. The is literally the thing he went to war to fight against.
If Putin genuinely has no intention of having another crack at Ukraine I don't see the specifics of the security guarantee make that much difference. Once it becomes clear Putin is committed to peace I'd imagine the Europeans would take steps to ensure security measures are less provocative…They would likely give him private assurances on this as part of peace negotiations: "If you're keeping you're nose clean we'll be scaling this all back pretty quickly."
I have to say that’s the most creative graph I ever seen
Agreed. UK troops would only get involved if there's a peace deal, and Putin gets to decide whether there's a peace deal. There is really very little prospect of any peace at the moment.
Effectively, Putin gets to choose whether he would like NATO troops in Ukraine as part of a peace deal or press ahead and take more Ukrainian land from a much weakened Ukraine that gets no more support from the US. I think I know which one he'll pick.
If the deal comes together the right way the issue of 'trust' should be beside the point. We're constantly being told that Russia is at the end of its tether militarily and desperate for a chance to regroup. Well if this is true and combined with solid security guarantees then there is a chance of a lasting peace. Under those conditrions Russia would not be ready to resume hostilities in Ukraine for another two or three years anyway. And by thst stage the security arrangements should be in place that would make such a resumption a massive act of folly on Putin's part.
One thing that startled me was when Trump started complaining about the Biden 'laptop from hell'. He was almost in tears as he defended Putin and decried all the unfair treatment Putin had to put up with because of it. Honestly, he sounded like someone whose boyfriend has been unfairly thrashed in a bar brawl. He really sounded like someone defending his lover.
Zelensky has said the constitution prevents him from ceding Ukrainian territory. He said the country would need to ratify such a deal through a referendum.
Having British troops and planes providing a military security guarantee in Ukraine after a peace agreement would be complete defeat for Putin. The is literally the thing he went to war to fight against. Perhaps if he was pushed out of Crimea and had suffered a serious of defeats on the battlefield, maybe he would have no choice but to sign an agreement like this.
Maybe the EU should improve relations with China in response to the US/Russian axis. The Chinese are a great bunch o lads.
Well yes, most people in that situation could, on reflection, do better. As for Zelenskyy telling the Americans that they will "feel it" if they let things degrade - that was just Zelenskyy putting the frighteners on 'em, as he is wont to do; he often cautions Europe about a Russian attack. All this is understandable from someone who has to constantly beg people to help him defend his people; he is not above using a bit of scare tactics to help his people. And they may not turn out to be scare tactics. He may well know stuff we don't know. He knows Putin better than most Europeans.
When Zelenskyy asked 'what kind of diplomacy do you mean' Vance lost it. Was Z. being sarcastic? He had Vance in a bind with this question and V. lost it. Maybe Z. did not mean to traumatize him. Maybe he was just using strong rhetoric because the stakes are high. Maybe he just used a little too much force. At worst it was bad choice of words, under pressure, not malice.
At any rate he was going to be attacked anyway. That was evident from the comments about his dress code. You could see Z. was very tense even when he got out of the car, even before Trump insulted his dress code. How can Z. be blamed in a hugely hostile situation such as this? If it was me, given half the chance, I'd have torn their heads off.
Given scale of death & destruction in Mariupol it comes across as offensive, and it doesn't make sense at all, so why bring it up? That was why I thought it was a joke. It is hard to prevent an invading army that manages to surround a city from killing large numbers of people in it, if they want to do that. Unlike the Omagh bombers (a couple of terrorists with a car bomb), the Russian military had a large airforce, tanks, artillery pieces, cruise and ballistic missiles etc. at their disposal.
As I understand it, the "coalition of the willing" would be a peacekeeping force in Ukraine only in the event that a peace deal is agreed. It is not a "new NATO for Europe".
It's far from a joke. The point is about the failure to prevent the killing of large numbers of civilians.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7270d983550b17037464bcf52151daef.svg)
