RayC

It would have made absolutely no difference. Do you really think that the UK would have been independent? Do you think that Hitler would have allowed Churchill free reign when it came to decisions on defence? The UK would have become a vassal state. It's as simple as that.

Notwithstanding the fact that I think that utter nonsense - do you really believe Jews would have been allowed to live freely in the UK? Their experience in Vichy France suggests otherwise - you do realise that by signing a peace accord with Hitler, the UK would have been tacitly supporting Nazism? You think that would have been morally correct?

Oh my giddy aunt🤦

The UK may have had its' problems post-WW2 but it beggars belief that anyone can seriously suggest that we would have been better served by being nothing more than a Nazi vassal state.

You have not shown any qualms about making lengthy posts in the past, so why start now? The article which you link to concludes that far-right groups were present at the Maidan protests. Imo this is undeniable. However, the link in no way supports your contention that " ... at least 3000 heavily armed far rightists (were) directing the pushback against the authorities." Imo the Maidan Revolt cannot be ignored when it comes to any discussion about the causes of this war. I have explained on numerous occasions why I think that the revolt was justified and legitimate i.e. because Yanukovych refused to enact his mandate. If you think otherwise you should make a counter argument. To date, you have not. (Note: I will read or watch anything you post within reason: Please do not post 30-minute videos or 50 page articles and expect me to read/ watch them)

And no one should kid themselves that this is a "friendship of equals". China is one dictating the terms of this relationship. As a business associate once said to me, "Anything for a friend for a fee".

If, as you appear to suggest, Russia is incapable of winning this war why doesn't Putin withdraw Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. Once that is done, decisions can be made about the price Russia should pay for starting this unnecessary war.

I am unsure what points you are trying to make but there is nothing in your reply that addresses my post, and it certainly doesn't in any way negate my contention that the responsibility for this war lies firmly with Russia (Putin). You attempt to paint Zelensky as a failure and imply that he is being anti-democratic by not holding an election. In normal, peaceful times you might have a point and the Ukrainian people might agree with you. However, of course, these are not normal times for Ukraine and attempting to hold an election now would be ridiculous. The Maidan Uprising WAS a mass revolt. You are being disingenuous and economical with the facts in attempting to portray it as anything else. It may have started out with a protest march of +/-20,000 people in Kyiv, but over the course of five days the numbers involved swelled to 800,000. There were also sizeable protests in other Ukrainian cities. There may well have been " .. a nasty undercurrent of far right forces fomenting unrest for their own ends ..", but the overwhelming majority of protesters were ordinary Ukrainian citizens and the only "echoes of January 6th" were to be found in the tiny number of far right agitators. You attempt to draw a parallel between Chechnya and Ukraine when none exists. Chechnya is part of Russia; Ukraine is - or would be were it not for Russia - an independent, sovereign nation. You imply that Yanukovych's action was justified as it was an attempt to avoid (armed?) conflict with Russia and build "cordial relations" with her, but the obvious conclusion is that the terms of this 'cordial relationship' would be dictated by Russia. What independent, sovereign nation would accept such conditions? What happens post-war depends upon many factors. There will inevitably be those who become wealthy (wealthier) on the back of any reconstruction. And ... ? Would you prefer that Ukraine remains nothing more than a very large demolition site?

I note that throughout our exchanges you make no attempt to address my points directly. I am not being at all facetious. I did not claim that Poland was a great power akin to Russia or the US. You are (deliberately?) misrepresenting what I wrote (in order to avoid answering the question?). You justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the premise that NATO (and the EU) are impinging on Russia's 'sphere of influence' by inviting Ukraine to join their respective organisations. Poland shares a border with Belarus (a puppet state of Russia) and developments there i.e. the increase in Russia's military presence prior to 2022 might be considered within Poland's - and by extension the EU/NATO's - 'area of interest'. By your line of argument, Poland - with the aid of NATO - would have been justified in reacting militarily against this provacation. Or perhaps you may hold an alternative view i.e. that Poland (and the Baltic States) should never have joined NATO (or the EU for that matter) in the first place? I am continually amazed that some people cannot see - or refuse to accept - Putin for what he is: A Cold War warrior who refuses to accept the fact that, with the demise of the Soviet Union, Russia is no longer the second great power on the world stage. It appears that Putin is determined to correct what he perceives as an injustice even if it risks starting another Europe-wide conflict.

How can you complain about the US's actions in Central/ South America (the US sphere of influence), while in the next breath justifying Russia's action in Ukraine and Georgia for the very same reason? Poland shares a border with both Belarus and Ukraine. Given the former is nothing more than a Russian puppet state and there is, unfortunately, the prospect of Ukraine going the same way, would Poland (with the aid of NATO/ the EU) be justified in invading either country in order to safeguard its' security? We now have Ukraine because Putin is an unreconstructed KGB man who longs for the return of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Bloc.

What is the point of being an independent, sovereign nation if you are not allowed by your larger neighbour to behave like one? See previous paragraph. Turkey was until recently, a candidate country for EU membership. It applied in 1987. It never became a member for a number of reasons. I suspect that something similar would have happened to Ukraine's application to join the EU and NATO. The Bucharest Declaration was also followed by the Russian invasion of Georgia, thus fuelling Ukraine's fears that they did have something to fear from their neighbour and that Putin couldn't be trusted.

I am not unaware of the announcement at the Bucharest conference, but announcing that Ukraine will become a member of NATO at some interminant time in the future is not the same as it actually being a member. As I said, imo Ukraine was not close to becoming a member of NATO (or the EU for that matter) in 2014. No way of knowing of course, but I suspect that if Russia had kept a 'watching brief' rather than actively engage in Ukraine, then Ukraine would be in the same position today vis-à-vis membership of both organisations as it was then i.e. hanging around in the waiting room, not least because both France and Germany had - and probably still have - strong reservations about Ukraine's membership of both organisations.

Hope that you get things sorted out. If you have not already done so, can I suggest that you download the HMRC app. It's available on Google Play (and presumably from the Apple store?). Once the app is up and running, details about your tax payments, pension contributions, etc can be viewed there. For information, once DWP/ HMRC have confirmed the reference you need to use in order to make voluntary contributions, you can use the same reference in the future. No need to contact them every time.

The war was completely unnecessary as, pre-2014 Ukraine was nowhere close to gaining NATO membership. Let's not forget that Russia was undermining Ukrainian sovereignty long before it started this war. The truth of the matter is that Putin refused to accept that the Ukrainian people preferred a future bound to Western Europe rather than Russia, and he has acted in order to try to stop it happening.

At least you are showing your true colours as a Putin fanboy. However, there is an alternative narrative to the image of loveable, hard done by, misunderstood Vlad which you portray. I sincerely hope the author of this piece is wrong, otherwise Ukraine and, indeed the world, will continue to suffer at the hands of this wanna be imperialist dictator. https://theconversation.com/russias-economy-is-now-completely-driven-by-the-war-in-ukraine-it-cannot-afford-to-lose-but-nor-can-it-afford-to-win-221333

Please spare me the faux moral indignation. Imo a leader which starts an unnecessary war is pure evil and anyone who supports a nation such as this lacks any sort of ethical standards worth mentioning.

So the experiences of your ex-colleagues in the two most economically wealthy cities in Russia, and who I imagine are among the +/-10% of the Russian population in terms of wealth(?), are to be considered more reflective of the economic situation on the ground than the official figures? I would think that the majority of Russian citizens - especially those outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg - might have a different tale to tell. Re Jammie Dodgers: If price is a consideration, can I suggest switching to one of the many supermarket's own brands. They are considerably cheaper.

So nations should start a war and kick-start their economies. That's an example of wise and far-sighted leadership!? The EU's dependence on Russian oil and gas has had a detrimental effect on some member states' economies. Unfortunately, doing the right thing can prove costly. The EU is now diversifying away from Russian gas but, a short-term dependency does still remain. Hopefully, sanctions on Russia can be tightened and the Russian economy will feel the effects.

The EU should, can and hopefully will do more to hurt Russia economically. Time will tell but maybe the new targeted sanctions will help "...Of this Russian LNG reaching the EU, more than 20% is being re-exported to other parts of the world. This practice runs counter to the EU's goal to curb, as much as possible, the revenues the Kremlin derives from its energy exports to fund its war, and made new targeted sanctions necessary" Nevertheless, the indications are that the Russian economy is over-heating. There is little slack in the labour market, Inflation is running at close to 10% year-on-year despite interest rates of 18%. Hopefully, tighter sanctions will increase these problems.

The Russian economy does continue to grow, but The Economist poses the more relevant question: 'How long can the party last?'. With the EU's renewed determination to reduce its' dependance on Russian gas, any future growth in the Russian economy may not so much be spurred on by increased military production but almost entirely dependent upon it. At the same time, there are fewer goods for the Russian public to buy and inflation is getting out of control. Hopefully, Russia's economic problems will bite progressively harder quickly. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/08/11/vladimir-putin-spends-big-and-sends-russias-economy-soaring https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/closing-tap-russian-gas-re-exports_en https://www.newsweek.com/russia-bank-inflation-economy-crisis-1922208

The simple truth is that a negotiated peace would be the quickest way to end this war, but it would result in Russia being rewarded for instigating the conflict and is therefore rejected by Ukraine and, for the time being at least, by her Western allies. Crimea was not lost to a Western-backed coup in 2014. It was lost to another act of aggression by Russia. The Maidan protests in 2014 - which eventually led to the overthrow of Yanukovych's government - were a direct result of Yanukovych refusing to sign and implement the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement. This Agreement had already been approved by the Ukrainian parliament and formed a major plank in the platform upon which Yanukovych had been elected. However, under pressure from Moscow, Yanukovych unilaterally decided against signing the Agreement campaign but instead sought closer ties to Russia, an act which led to his removal. This event was the catalyst for the escalation in the conflict in Ukraine. Russia may be concerned at what she perceives as NATO military encroachment into her sphere of influence, but imo she is even more concerned about her loss of economic influence and simply does not respect Ukraine's decision to place her future economic prospects with the West (the EU). The blame for this conflict sits squarely on Russian shoulders.

You can make enquiries online as well https://secure.dwp.gov.uk/contact-the-international-pension-centre/contact-form

Probably easier to list the countries which don't have a Bill of Rights

Looks like you have found #11 https://plotlygraphs.medium.com/spurious-correlations-56752fcffb69

Here we go again; the faux concern I imagine that the justifiable anger felt by Ukrainian widows and orphans is directed towards Putin and Russia, not the UK and US.