Russia has invaded Ukraine

[Gavin78]

Originally Posted by Hugh

If people are siding with a person who assassinates his opponents in their own country, fixes internal elections to maintain power, invades other countries and murders prisoners-of-war and kidnaps children, they may wish to re-evaluate their life choices…

I don't think anyone is siding with anyone. you have to ask why did Russia invade Ukraine.

1. They knew they could
2. He knew nobody would stop him (in reality)
3. They blame Nato for getting too close to their borders and arming them

The reason I mentioned Cuba was this is no different aside from Cuba being pro Russian. isn't this how the cold war started the first time it's not much different now and this all started with N korea, followed by Russia who happens to have N korea in their back pocket again.

I see what Zelenski was saying when he says you may have water, they did back in 1962 it still didn't stop Russia trying.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Gavin78

I don't think anyone is siding with anyone. you have to ask why did Russia invade Ukraine.

1. They knew they could
2. He knew nobody would stop him (in reality)
3. They blame Nato for getting too close to their borders and arming them

The reason I mentioned Cuba was this is no different aside from Cuba being pro Russian. isn't this how the cold war started the first time it's not much different now and this all started with N korea, followed by Russia who happens to have N korea in their back pocket again.

I see what Zelenski was saying when he says you may have water, they did back in 1962 it still didn't stop Russia trying.

I agree with your points 1 and 2. Point No. 3 makes no sense, it's just a Russian talking point which you've chosen to repeat again. As has been explained:
1.The UK, France and the US (and Russia) agreed to defend Ukraine's borders in an international treaty, so have an acknowledged interest in ensuring Ukraine is equipped to do so. Not that they were arming Ukraine before the invasion to any extent though.
2. Ukraine was not a NATO member and Russia had agreed that Poland and other Eastern European countries could join NATO.
3. Invading Ukraine risked more neutral, close by countries joining NATO, which Finland and Sweden did last year
4. By swallowing up Ukraine, Russia puts itself on a border with more NATO countries.

---------- Post added at 07:39 ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

They don't need guarantees, the minerals themselves are the guarantee, wonder if donnie realises, my guess is he doesn't

We learnt yesterday that Ukraine's position had not changed and it still wanted security guarantees. Given that the deal was not a done one, hoping to sign it on the day was probably somewhat optimistic for both parties and humiliating for Trump who would take it personally.

Do you think Ukraine will now have to yield and sign a deal without any US security guarantees? Or is there another route to preserving Ukraine's independence?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

If people are siding with a person who assassinates his opponents in their own country, fixes internal elections to maintain power, invades other countries and murders prisoners-of-war and kidnaps children, they may wish to re-evaluate their life choices…

Are we talking about Putin or Hamas?

---------- Post added at 07:53 ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Do you think Ukraine will now have to yield and sign a deal without any US security guarantees? Or is there another route to preserving Ukraine's independence?

There’s always a deal to be done, but it will be difficult now.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Are we talking about Putin or Hamas?

In isolation, that description could indeed cover other regimes. But posted in the long-running thread 'Russia has invaded Ukraine', it's evidently talking about Putin.

[jfman]

I actually think a deal is closer now than ever. Zelensky has run out of road. Whether that’s a deal with Zelensky or his successor remains to be seen.

Nobody is saying it yet but it’s inevitable the USA will reduce financial, operational and logistical support from the Ukraine war effort which requires substantial input to stand still. There will never be a better offer than now.

Not sure that allowing Putin to re-arm and then invade Ukraine for the third time in the future could be described as "a better offer"…

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Not sure that allowing Putin to re-arm and then invade Ukraine for the third time in the future could be described as "a better offer"…

Appreciate that’s your long standing view but it’s the hypothetical future invasion against the certainty of an ongoing invasion with fewer resources than received to date.

Now that for Trump it’s personal post-2022 Ukraine needs to get to 2028 and an (also hypothetical) more favourable political environment.

When hypothesis are based on actual recent events, rather than wishful thinking, it’s more like a sure bet…

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Not sure that allowing Putin to re-arm and then invade Ukraine for the third time in the future could be described as "a better offer"…

Depends on the terms of the peace deal.

[jfman]

No words yet from Sir Keir as over 20 European leaders have made clear statements supporting Ukraine since last night’s debacle.

It’s going to be interesting to see the reaction as we no doubt continue our role of cosplaying as a great power while supporting American interests. The special relationship is like a ventriloquist with a dummy, and I know which one Starmer is.

It's more like a ventriloquist's dummy with a dummy, with the ventriloquist behind a curtain...

[Gavin78]

Trump has is own personal vendetta against the world for disliking him the first time round. He doesn't have the USA interests at heart like he said and is creating more world wide divide.

He's seen what Russia is getting away with and just attempting to do the same thing him self. The only deal I see coming out of talks over Ukraine is which parts of the land Russia and America are going to share between themselves

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Gavin78

3. They blame Nato for getting too close to their borders and arming them.

They need to look closer to home, their actions made Finland join nato, so now they have a 1000 plus mile boarder with nato and are within walking distance of one of they most major cities

Originally Posted by Hugh

It's more like a ventriloquist's dummy with a dummy, with the ventriloquist behind a curtain...