RayC

I'm unclear about your point? Do you think that those demands are reasonable or not?

Condemn racism in whatever form it takes. Stop illegal immigration while at the same time allowing genuine refugees asylum. There is "no colonization of the indigenous British people by hate groups". You are fantasizing from afar. Ensure that those who have proven themselves to be unfit for high political office are removed by democratic means asap. Unfortunately, it is very unlikely that Braverman will lose her seat at the next election. We can only hope that Tory MPs voting for their next leader are sane enough to prevent this mad woman from getting into the run-off: If Johnson and Truss were bad (they were), Braverman would plunge new depths.

The displaced could be granted refugee status by Suella Braverman.

If so, then the police are going to be very busy. Would be interesting to see the methodology which gave rise to your estimate.

Tricky one for Sunak. Allow Braverman to remain in post and he will be accused of being weak; she will be emboldened and continue to be the 'enemy within'. Sack her and the 'Flat Earth Brigade' within the CPP will probably be in open revolt. Gold dust to Labour as we move towards the next election.

Given that he appears to have a fair few people on 'Ignore', he will probably end up talking to himself. Probably for the best.

I'd rather he stayed until the next election. Sunak is far from perfect but at least he isn't 'Mad' Suella.

Perhaps we could form a club and have the occasional 'get together'? I'll bring cake.

(Presumably, you won't read this post but, nevertheless, I'll make the point). This was bound to happen: You realise that your argument is lost, but rather than either a) admit this or b) let the matter quietly drop (by not responding further), you make a public show of playing the 'Ignore' card. Sad (but, of course, that's just my subjective opinion).

I doubt that many people who support Ukraine in this conflict are blind to the fact that corruption exists there. In the context of this war it is irrelevant. Ukraine is engaged in a war to preserve its' identity. The problem of corruption can be addressed later (hopefully, after an Ukrainian victory). Likewise, I imagine that most people are well aware that companies involved in defence-related activities make good profits from a war.

You might have asked the same question of the average British Tommy in WW2. The answer is that they were (are) fighting for their freedom and liberty. (Note: I am not discounting the role played by US and Commonwealth troops. It is simply that those countries would not have fallen to the Nazis). No one is suggesting that Putin is trying to exterminate a race but what he is trying to do is extinguish Ukrainian nationalism: There is also a parallel in Hitler's expansionism and that of Putin. (My previous paragraph also refers). I think that everyone would like the hostilities to end asap. However, the simplest way for that to happen would be an immediate withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine. Unfortunately, unless Putin can be removed this is unlikely, therefore the war will continue.

Do you admire Shakib Al Hasan by any chance? https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/67333235

You seem very keen to determine how Central and East Europeans should live their lives. So what they needed post-WW2 was to have their liberty and rights removed and to live under a murderous tyrant. You seem to be in favour of something similar today.

What I have been doing is refuting your arguments, some of which are factually incorrect: However, we still return to the same point. You lay the blame for the war in Ukraine at the feet of Zelensky. I make the obvious point - which you still refuse to accept - that if there had been no invasion, then there would be no war (at least not on this scale). You are either an appeaser and apologist for Putin or a supporter who considers his actions justifiable. What does "Only in NATO countries" mean/ refer to in this context? Nation's/ Tribes have fought (probably) since Mankind has existed and will continue to do so ..... And? I have no idea how this addresses my point and/or what point you trying to make? So on the one hand, you criticise the West for not intervening to support (presumably?) Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the '50s and '60s but, on the other, you criticise the West for involving itself in this conflict!!

You're in favour of the US giving aid to Taiwan but not to Ukraine. I accept that they are two separate conflicts with two totally different sets of circumstances but what iyo makes Taiwan deserving and not Ukraine?

The UK military had been run down during the inter-war years but it was far from "a toothless tiger". The Royal Navy dwarfed the German navy in its' size and capabilities. More importantly in 1939, European Allied military strength (UK, France, Low countries) was far greater than Germany. Indeed, in terms of size France's military strength alone was almost as great as Germany's. Where Germany had the decisive advantage in 1939 was in terms of the quality of its' resources (especially human resources in the army). Nevertheless, going to war in 1939 was a huge risk for Hitler. From a German perspective, things couldn't have gone better: Never in their wildest dreams did the German high command expect to sweep through the Low countries and France in six weeks. Back to the original point: The non-existence of Allied nuclear weapons in 1939 is a complete red herring. Err ... fortunately, the Allies won the war! I assume that you are referring to the defeat of the British Expeditionary Force? It proves nothing. A nuclear deterrent is a powerful weapon Possibly not Possibly not but what's your point? It does not negate my contention that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is an act of expansionism akin to Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938. The existence of NATO hopefully means that Putin will not expand further westwards, but that will be cold-comfort to non-aligned states such as Georgia and Moldova. No doubt, if and when Russia invades those states you would again view it as just a bi-lateral issue? (Postscript: Your response below answers my question). So what was (is) the alternative other than for Ukraine to resist? Should she have simply agreed at the outset to whatever demands Putin made? See my previous comment above. A completely different topic "they" being whom? Ukraine? So that's it! When all is said and done, your sole argument for Putin's naked aggression and invasion of Ukraine is that it is justified as being a reaction to what you perceive as US hegemony in the region. You do not care for the fate of Ukrainians, or Russians for that matter.

I should have said "NATO member states" in my original post to be clearer. In any event, NATO's involvement as an organisation has been limited mainly to co-ordination (including that of humanitarian aid. Do you consider this to be inappropriate?). Good article here with some experts suggesting that NATO, as an organisation, hasn't done enough https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/87799 That is exactly what they have done! US assistance has been - and hopefully will continue to be - invaluable, but European support would have been forthcoming - and will continue to be forthcoming - in any event. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-tracker-europe-clearly-overtakes-us-with-total-commitments-now-twice-as-large/ It appears that the EU (and probably the UK) will, rightly, offer long-term support (see also link in previous paragraph) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.ft.com/content/8e088784-bd54-49e9-b710-520d84d42dc3&ved=2ahUKEwiu48_P6LWCAxVSr1YBHYfbCzMQ0PADKAB6BAgiEAE&usg=AOvVaw2yq13KJntvCTdpefAps8_b And ignore the implications and consequences of allowing a powerful, aggressive, expansionist state to do what it likes in the region unopposed. Spare me the patronising, sarcastic, holier-than-thou attitude. There would be a lot fewer body bags filled with Russians and Ukrainians if Putin hadn't launched his invasion in the first place. That is a fact - not an opinion - but is something that you refuse to accept or acknowledge.

How have NATO/ the US made a mistake in trying to support the basic principle of Ukrainian self-determination? Surely it can only be considered a mistake if you believe that the Russian invasion is justified? Is that your position? You refuse to acknowledge the parallels between Czechoslovakia in 1938, but contend that there is a comparison with more recent wars involving the US. As you say yourself, the West (US and NATO member states) are not suffering casualties in Ukraine so what are the similarities?

Why does the non-existence of allied nuclear weapons in 1938 make the comparison invalid? A negotiated peace with a loss of Ukrainian land would be seen as a victory for Putin's aggression. How could it be viewed any other way? Such an outcome might not convince Putin that he could take control of disputed territories in NATO countries e.g. Estonia but it would probably embolden him to cement Russia's position in non-NATO countries such as Georgia and Moldova, in the (relatively) safe knowledge that NATO support will be minimal.

Fair play to Maxwell. I can't think of a better ODI innings especially given the circumstances (his and the match).

Minsk 2 never had a chance of succeeding given that Putin undermined it from the outset.

If that does occur then imo it will be a betrayal of Ukraine akin to the betrayal of Czechoslovakia in 1938 and, like that betrayal, a collosal mistake. We can all hope that the outcome would not be the same as in 1938, but imo there is little evidence to suggest that any such action would appease an aggressive dictator like Putin.

Replace "he/ him(Zelensky)" with "he/ him (Putin)"; "Kviv" with "Moscow" and reverse instances of "Ukraine" and "Russia" in your first two paragraphs, and imo that is spot on.

Neither Trump nor anyone else can. Imo such a move would be seen for what it is: A reward for Russian aggression.

Surely the relative casualty rates must be a factor?