RayC

That would be some achievement as I'm not sure how the comments could be more banal and simplistic. But hey, give it a shot, go ahead and surprise me.

I clicked 'Confused' because your initial post makes no sense. There is no premise, no coherent argument and therefore no logical conclusion. Apart from that, it's fine. Mind you, TBF you are not on your own; your post is no different to most of the others in this thread.

The China debt trap is no myth as the experience of Sri Lanka and numerous African countries clearly demonstrates. BRICS stated purpose may well be to improve the well-being of its' members (my summation) but that is meaningless in itself, and doesn't differ from the objectives of any other similar grouping e.g. the EU, ASEAN, etc. Why are so many nations joining BRICS? Why not? There are no obligations or restrictions on member states currently, so where's the harm in joining? Whether these members remain and whether there is any benefit to being a member remains to be seen. You claim that BRICS is "apolitical and non-interference". This may well be the case currently and BRICS current lack of influence as a grouping on the world stage would appear to support this proposition. However, if BRICS is to develop into an organisation to break the grip of Western hegemony as you claim, it certainly won't be able to remain that way.

Oh, I don't doubt that the 21st century will turn out to be the 'Asian century' at some point, what I dispute is your contention that, "BRICS is the beginning of a new world order that promotes equality and fairness among all nations". China's behaviour in Africa and Asia suggests otherwise. Russia? Ukrainians think differently. India under Modi is a nationalist state. The other members are either much of the same or unimportant on the world stage or relative to China and India.

Rightio🤦

Actuality: I research issues, weigh up the evidence and then come to a conclusion, unlike some who, for example, think that the mere presence of the same noun in two philosophies shows commonality. Still no link to the other thread. Worried what it shows?

Actuality: Matter already debated and premise debunked in another thread. Post the link to your previous thread and allow others to see the evidence. Btw: One of the 'crib notes' which I posted was from the Encyclopedia Brittanica website.

Sometimes the use of internet crib notes is all it takes to debunk the facile arguments of those with extremely limited knowledge of a subject.

At least you're correct about one thing. Your previous overly simplistic argument that, 'National Socialism' and 'Socialism' are one and the same, was shot down in flames. Your argument amounted to little more than, 'The Nazis official title is, Nationalsozialistischer Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP, National Socialist German Workers’ Party), therefore they must be socialists. As was pointed out at the time, to highlight the absurdity of this line of argument, the fact that North Korea is officially named (in English), 'The Democratic People's Republic of Korea', does not mean that it is a democracy. (You may have also stated that Mussolini initially described himself as a socialist as further supporting 'evidence' that fascism and socialism are 'one and the same'. Apologies if I am confusing you with someone else in this instance). Without wishing to reopen that whole sorry topic, here's a couple (more) links offering a more nuanced view on the matter: https://fee.org/articles/were-the-nazis-really-socialists-it-depends-on-how-you-define-socialism/ https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

"Liberté, égalité, fraternité". Really? I think that western countries may be concerned that the 'C' is more equal than the other letters and what the possible implications might be.

It's quite sad to see someone try so hard to stay relevant and fail so miserably. What possessed the Tory MPs and members who thought that she was the right person to lead the country?

I wish I shared your optimism.

Very little. I agree with your sentiments. A co-ordinated EU + UK defence strategy is needed. However, it will not be plain sailing for any UK PM to achieve to get this accepted, such is the irrational loathing of Europe by some factions in the UK.

How very dare you. The whole point of Brexit was to pull up the drawbridge and have nothing to do with the dastardly Europeans. You and your sensible suggestions. What's the world coming to?

One of? Sadly, she is so deluded that she thinks she is.

'Only 3 years to go and I can run for POTUS', thought the donkey.

So you are trying to draw a parallel between a country which currently has a war being fought on it's terrority, where a large proportion of its' people have been displaced and where much of the infrastructure has been destroyed and a country that experienced none of that during WW2? Yep. That makes sense.

Trump has made plain what he thinks of Western Europe. As soon as he imposes a surrender on Ukraine, his focus will turn to Asia. Europe should follow his lead. However, unfortunately in the short term Europe needs the US more than they need us, so Europe will just have to bite the bullet for a while.

Even more predictable was your deflection. What is BRICS currently anyway? It's not a political union. It's not an economic union. It's not a trading bloc. In fact, it doesn't appear to be much more than an inappropriate acronym and an annual beano for a few developing nation leaders and their cronies.

So you expect Intelligence Agencies to produce reports disclosing what, when and how they collect data and place that information in the public domain in order than their conclusions can be verified? Presumably you would also like them to disclose the names and contact details of any sources as well? And your point is what? The US has been consistent in its' opposition to Nordstream from the beginning. The EU member states were spilt on the issue with some states such as Poland warning against over-dependence on Russian resources. Events seem to have proved the Poles correct. Try browsing the links I previously listed. You obviously don't recall Putin's hostility towards Ukraine - and the EU - over its' intention to apply to join the bloc. I'll pre-empt your predictable response by stating that it is not Western propaganda. Can I suggest that you do some research. Maybe start by searching for Ukrainian public attitudes towards EU membership and then ask yourself, 'Why would the Ukrainian PM elected on a platform of joining the EU which 80% of Ukrainians supported suddenly and inexplicably invoke a complete volte-face?' Could it perhaps, be the result of pressure from a near neighbour? Frankly no (No pun intended again) and I'd be concerned if I did.

What Trump is offering Biden certainly isn't blameless but then neither are Obama and Trump Mk 1 (and all the other Western European leaders for that matter). They all bear some responsibility. However, none of the above have sold Ukraine down the river in the way that Trump Mk 2 now in intends to do. To repeat, if his current vision comes to pass, imo history will not be kind to Trump and will bracket him with the other great appeaser, Chamberlain.

Clearly there would have to be something to entice Putin to the negotiating table apart from the threat of escalation. For example, some sort of power sharing arrangement in the Donbass and an acknowledgement of Russia's concerns about Ukraine and NATO membership. Maybe an undertaking not to have bases or manoeuvres in Ukraine while not ruling out membership per sec? As you rightly infer, Crimea is tricky. Hard to imagine Putin retreating to the situation in 2014 but equally difficult to see how Ukraine/ The West can allow Putin to continue to keep his fleet there.

"Reality needs to be addressed here. Ukraine is on the backfoot and this won't change until the guns fall quiet" I agree but that reality does not have to be effectively total victory for Russia which is what the Trump offer amounts to. I can only repeat: A diametrically opposite threatening Putin with escalation if he doesn't negotiate was a viable alternative although, unfortunately, it will not now happen. Imo history will not be kind to Trump. He will be viewed as nothing more than an appeaser similar to Chamberlain.

Who would verify this material? The Chinese? Unsurprisingly, independently verified proof of intelligence material is hard to come by, but the amount of data pointing to Russian interference isn't. Try this for size: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_British_politics https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief-2024-may-1/ The EU needed Russian energy so it brought it. And? Hypocritical? Perhaps. But then if the alternative was a depression then economic reality kicked in. It could also be argued that it was hypocritical of Russia to sell the oil to the West given her hostility towards it. Ukraine did not "suddenly kick off" as a result of some cock-eyed conspiracy theory about the US and Nord2. Putin has been undermining Ukrainian politics since he came to power and has been escalating matters since 2014, climaxing with the unlawful invasion in 2022. As someone who is presumably from the Soviet Bloc, you have been indoctrinated and are therefore almost by definition incapable of rational independent thought. Your reality doesn't exist elsewhere. On a positive note, for a native Russian speaker your English is very good.

Russia may be winning the war at the moment but the momentum might change if NATO were to put boots on the ground. A high-risk strategy but is it any worse than the total appeasement of a dictatorial expansionist which is what Trump is currently offering?