Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

























SouthSaxon

Stand or fall
NSC Patron
Jan 25, 2025
700
“…Under proposals published on Wednesday…”
Yes, but there are two separate things here with different timescales. I’ll spell out my thinking:

1) This week’s proposal ties defence procurement with non-EU states to existence of security agreements. A sensible step to prevent further purchase of US arms that are dependent on US willingness to service and maintain.

2) France HAS (past tense) lobbied for an EU/UK defence agreement to be tied to fishing rights agreements. This was in late January (easily verifiable via a quick Google search)

2a) France doesn’t have unilateral power to make that decision on behalf of the entire EU. I doubt that Austria, Italy, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Greece, Cyprus, Croatia or Malta are that fussed about North Sea quotas. Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania all have far bigger concerns (their sovereignty and territorial integrity currently being threatened and/or directly targeted) than where French trawlers are allowed to go.

The Times quotes you’ve shared do not prove that #2 remains the case in light of TrumPutin ripping up the world order in the 6 weeks since the French position was reported.

If you can provide a link showing that the details of this week’s proposals specifically stipulate that agreement on fishing rights must be part of those defence agreements, or that France is still lobbying for this, I’ll gratefully recant and consider my knowledge expanded. I’ll offer you my thanks for doing so.

I’ve looked and found nothing more recent than the link I shared which indicated France didn’t have that agreement inside the EU even in early Feb.
 


raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
9,157
Wiltshire
Here's an extract from Diane Francis...it's actually a quote from Trump in 2020 about the Israel/Palestinian situation.

"...but I support whatever is necessary to get peace, [but] a lasting peace. It can’t go on where every five years you end up in tragedy. There are other alternatives,”

Yes Trump, that's right - so apply the same principle to the Ukraine war.
 


carlzeiss

Well-known member
May 19, 2009
6,355
Amazonia




raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
9,157
Wiltshire
This bit from Russian reporting very likely a lie or debris from crap Russian air defense:
"Two people were wounded in Engels, while a hospital, two kindergartens, a school and at least 30 homes were damaged, according to Busargin and Russian investigators."
 


Sirnormangall

Well-known member
Sep 21, 2017
3,443
That’s a fun development…Trump wants Ukraine to let the US run Zaporizhzhia…which is currently in Russian-occupied territory.

Sure, Donald, send 250,000 troops to get it back. FUN!

Proof that he’s making it up as he goes and that this is all a sideshow that will achieve nothing (good).
So Putin is going to be happy with US troops defending the power plants? And if US troops are killed in defending them what will Trump do? And even if the US successfully protects the power plants, he won’t be able to protect the energy distribution network…..and, and, and
 


peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
12,905
So Putin is going to be happy with US troops defending the power plants? And if US troops are killed in defending them what will Trump do? And even if the US successfully protects the power plants, he won’t be able to protect the energy distribution network…..and, and, and
I don't think the plan is for Trump to militarily defend them.

I think he wants to take ownership of them, in similar way, french companies own some of ours, sell Ukraine electricity from its own reactors and use them as leverage against Ukraine if needed.
 




Rdodge30

Well-known member
Dec 30, 2022
1,117
The Times quotes you’ve shared do not prove that #2 remains the case in light of TrumPutin ripping up the world order in the 6 weeks since the French position was reported.


The Times quotes say exactly the same as you… that they have in the past tried to link to…

That’s all.

We are in agreement here, I just haven’t really expressed myself well.

The main point is that Starmer has tried to organise an alliance of the willing or whatever and Macron has stood beside him but as always greed (on both sides here- French and English) is the stumbling block.

To be honest they both look … self serving ?


My view is that often in life - being opposed to one side does not mean you are In favour of the other side.

In a world of c****s I would include, Trump, Putin, Zelenskyy, Macron and Starmer for a start.

I can’t think of one of them that wouldn’t sacrifice peace for financial gain or political stature.

You might think I have no time for current world leaders and I have to admit I’m struggling to think of one I do have time for.
 


SouthSaxon

Stand or fall
NSC Patron
Jan 25, 2025
700
I don't think the plan is for Trump to militarily defend them.

I think he wants to take ownership of them, in similar way, french companies own some of ours, sell Ukraine electricity from its own reactors and use them as leverage against Ukraine if needed.
It’s about as feasible/ridiculous as Trump Gaza, I don’t think it deserves to be described as a “plan” ;)

Which of the two nations claiming sovereignty over Zaporizhzhia Oblast is he going to negotiate with?

I think we’d all have our suspicions about that, but he discussed it with Zelenskyy. Presumably this indicates he’s respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty over that region.

Huzzah!

That leaves the question of simultaneously convincing Putin to give up Russia’s claim to it while creating a new, never-before-seen amicable relationship between the US and Russia. Or, alternatively, dislodging Russia from Zaporizhzhia by force.

Simples!
 




Eric the meek

Fiveways Wilf
NSC Patron
Aug 24, 2020
8,440
In a world of c****s I would include, Trump, Putin, Zelenskyy, Macron and Starmer for a start.

I can’t think of one of them that wouldn’t sacrifice peace for financial gain or political stature.
Zelensky? You mean this bloke, who on the night of the invasion, stayed, and didn't run?
The one whose face you saw, and not his back?

Quite simply, at that moment, he saved his country.

 




raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
9,157
Wiltshire
I don't think the plan is for Trump to militarily defend them.

I think he wants to take ownership of them, in similar way, french companies own some of ours, sell Ukraine electricity from its own reactors and use them as leverage against Ukraine if needed.
Yes, that's the likely deal. Trump loves leverage, "give Putin all of Kharkiv or we'll turn off the electricity" sort of malarkey.
 


raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
9,157
Wiltshire
The Times quotes say exactly the same as you… that they have in the past tried to link to…

That’s all.

We are in agreement here, I just haven’t really expressed myself well.

The main point is that Starmer has tried to organise an alliance of the willing or whatever and Macron has stood beside him but as always greed (on both sides here- French and English) is the stumbling block.

To be honest they both look … self serving ?


My view is that often in life - being opposed to one side does not mean you are In favour of the other side.

In a world of c****s I would include, Trump, Putin, Zelenskyy, Macron and Starmer for a start.

I can’t think of one of them that wouldn’t sacrifice peace for financial gain or political stature.

You might think I have no time for current world leaders and I have to admit I’m struggling to think of one I do have time for.
I agree with two of your c***s. I have all the time in the world for Zelenskiy, and quite a lot for Macron and Starmer.
I have no idea why you'd put all five in the same basket ffs.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here