Presidential Election 2025

Her call for a 'ceasefire' is just a call for surrender to Russian demands.

Where has she said this?

You really need to start backing up the vilification. Because that is what it is.

Russia is the aggressor here, it needs to be pressured into a ceasefire and negotiations.

If that's a prerequisite of a neutral position why are we sending assistance to Ukraine and imposing sanctions on Russia?

No floundering - the more you try to defend her the more you prove my point.

So she is neutral between the illegal invader and the illegally invaded?
That's a morally bankrupt position informed by a politically bankrupt position, accepting the Russian propaganda that this is a defensive war as she rants about NATO and the EU military-industrial complex.
Having seen what has happened to Ukraine, does anyone here doubt that if the Baltic States were like Ukraine outside the EU and NATO that they would not be subject to the same sort of domination Russia attempted versus Ukraine?
The only way they could avoid war would be going down the Belarus puppet state route.
Did NATO 'encroach' in the Baltic States? She is the one repeating such Russian propaganda in relation to Ukraine.

That it is not legitimate for Ukraine to seek the protection and assistance of allies, as is it's right under the NATO Russia Founding Act and the Budapest Agreement. Implicitly therefore that argument also applies to the Baltic States, Poland etc.

The net result of her position on foreign affairs = no alternative other than surrender to tyranny and dictatorships. Because there is simply no realistic way for Ukraine and the Baltic States to be independent against the Russian threat on their own.
And she certainly has provided no credible alternative for how they might do so. Just hand wringing about NATO and tentative EU military measures.

If that's a prerequisite of a neutral position why are we sending assistance to Ukraine and imposing sanctions on Russia?

She supports assistance to Ukraine and sees the invasion as illegal and abhorrent.

She doesn't support prolonging the war from a human suffering concern.

Again, you or I may not agree with her, but I for one would defend her right to say it without the vilification.

Vilification arrived at, as demonstrated, by guessing what she really believes.

So she's not neutral then.
Either she is or she isn't?
Can't seem to make up the mind can you even as you try to defend her?

She doesn't support prolonging the war.
Again what that does that mean?
Does it mean she doesn't support Ukraine continuing to fight? That it should accept whatever terms Russia demands?
Will there be zero human suffering if Ukraine accepted such demands?
Because that is what calling for a ceasefire without regard to Ukraine's position as the victim of an illegal invasion translates to.

I shouldn't have to 'guess'. Her position should be clear, she has numerous speeches on the subject but instead we get the typical both sides nonsense, for which she deserves vilification.

And it is not a guess. I have read enough comments from people who make similar arguments to know why they have chosen the words and phrasings they have chosen.

And let's not forget Ukraine did offer a ceasefire, it was thrown back in their faces with war crimes. As anyone paying attention could have predicted.

I think every politician concerned with an issue has a right to comment on any negotiated settlement.
Trump would be 'interfering' in ceasefire negotiations - no?

Do you know the difference between 'negotiations' and a 'negotiated settlement'?

By suggesting a plan for a Gaza Riviera, Trump is interfering in negotiations between two combatants.

Commenting on or giving an opinion on a concluded negotiation to have a Gazan Riviera is an entirely different thing.

I've looked for them and haven't found them. There's an open invitation to posters on the thread and no one else has provided.
The chorus she has joined in on is the standard both sides false equivalences, some of the same propaganda Russia used to justify the invasion.
She hasn't said anything to distance herself from that, and what she has said ticks all the boxes.

What's simplistic is her position… calling for a ceasefire, as if the people involved never thought of that.
Did she ever stop to think why there wasn't a ceasefire in place?
What does she expect Ukraine to do? Her speeches give no sign of it. Michael Martin asked her that question in the Dail and she responded with something about Ireland.

When Ukraine offered, Russia responded with mass attacks on civilians.
As anyone paying attention to Russia could have predicted.
Which shows how simplistic her worldview is.

Simplistic nonsense about NATO, which is just rehashed Russian propaganda, never once stopping to think why Ukraine (and the likes of Baltic States, Poland) might want to join NATO and are entitled to do so as per agreements between the players in the region. That's not western meddling. That's newly independent countries exercising their agency. Something that seems to be beyond CC's comprehension as she talks of NATO meddling and encroachment.
So implicitly, that is a position that somehow Ukraine, Baltic States would have been left to go about their way as independent, sovereign states as 'neutral' countries without being subjected to Russian domination… which is completely disconnected from reality.

She dog whistles about an EU military industrial complex, yet offers absolutely no alternatives other than exhortations to peace. How does she expect vulnerable EU states to be defended? She has no answer.
Simple simplistic nonsense, hurling from the ditch, hand wringing, pearl clutching, whatever you want to call it.
It is simply no basis for the security of European states threatened by Russia.
She needs to "get real" as she was told by Michael Martin in the Dail but shows no signs of it.

Keep changing the goalposts.

Not interested in debates where you do that.

If you refuse to see the difference between interfering in negotiations and making a comment on a negotiated settlement then I can’t hep you any further.

Has she made many public speeches on the subject of wife beating?

She's made many public comments on the Ukraine situation.

She was asked what does she expect Ukraine to do, and the question completely flummoxed her.

That's a million miles away from "have you stopped beating your wife" questions so I reject that entirely.