RayC

But it appears that you no longer want us as your client. If that's the case, don't meddle in affairs that are no longer your concern. Then those of us in Europe have nothing to worry about. That's a relief. Why would the EU want to exert authoritarian power over Ukraine? Given that you appear to be washing your hands of Europe, why embroil yourselves in Europe's domestic problems? Any idea when that might happen? I don't know enough about either region to comment. Maybe a Pole, German, Lithuanian, Ukrainian or Russian has a view.

If you know all about Mr. Orban then why ask me to explain things to you? What do I find objectionable about him? You mean apart from his authoritarianism and hypocrisy?

I assume that you mean "is" rather than "is not" otherwise this sentence makes no sense. Anyway ... You really should adopt a more nuanced view of things. Just because your guy says A, B, C is true, you do not have to accept this as fact (or reality). It is quite possible to support A while disagreeing with B and C, although this will involve removing the blinkers and engaging in some critical analysis and thought. There is a mixture of fact and opinion in the piece which does not equal reality. It is a comprehensive piece and I don't have time to list all my objections to it, so I will stick to the main theme. The author states that since WW2, Europe's shape has largely been determined as a result of bi-lateral agreements between the US and Russia, and that the resulting conditions have (largely) been positive. Therefore, Europe should not fear any decisions made at a Putin - Trump meeting. What this analysis ignores is that previous US administrations and the EU/ UK were singing from the same hymn sheet and desired the same outcome. Is that the case now? Can the EU/ UK rely on Trump to represent its' interests? I would suggest that the actions of the Trump presidency to date suggest otherwise. The author also states that the "idea that Putin wants to roll across EU’s and NATO’s borders is a matter of opinion and speculation, not of fact". Of course that is a truism, however, it is also equally true if one inserts " .. does not ..." between "Putin" and "want". Can the EU/ UK take a change that Putin will prove to be a benevolent victor, especially given that the safety net of US protection appears to be sagging? Imo no which negates the author's conclusion that a good or bad deal (in Alaska) is irrelevant for Europe, Familiarise yourself with Orban and his views - especially wrt foreign affairs - then read some of the articles in 'Brussels Signal'. The answer should then become clear.

Talking of music, your favourite song by any chance? Have a good weekend.

Lee Anderson said that? With a straight face? 😂😂😂😂😂😂

If your lack of a driving or TV licence is brought to your attention by someone outside of the licensing authorities and you rectify your mistake immediately, then I doubt that you will be prosecuted. On the other hand, if you receive a notice from the licensing authorities about the matter, then your luck's probably out and you'll most likely have to pay a fine. Maybe put a reminder(s) in your calendar. Hope this helps.

Clearly no need for police involvement in such cases, but it would be interesting to hear this book owner explain Brexit's benefits. No doubt any explanation would be over almost before it started.

More evidence - if any more were needed - that you are nothing more than a sad, old misogynist with a hugely misplaced, over-inflated, arrogant ego. Unfortunately, there are some women who feel the need to be dominated and submissive so, perhaps, I am being unfair on you: Maybe you are supplying a service to this cohort. Anyway, I see little point in continuing this discussion. No doubt you will crack on with your "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women". That is Google's definition of misogyny. If the cap fits, wear it.

As I was saying, 'Brussels Signal' is a mouthpiece for Orban, one of Putin's BFF: "... Brussels Signal has murkier origins. Its publisher, Egan, is a longtime American strategist for Orbán’s Fidesz party. This isn’t his first foray into media: his consultancy publishes Remix News, an English-language site focused on Central and Eastern Europe that pushes an Orbán-friendly worldview with backing from the government, according to Hungarian investigative journalists. Egan registered Remedia Europe, which publishes Brussels Signal, in Belgium last year with startup funds of €275,000. Egan refused to reveal the source of Remedia Europe’s funds". Source: https://www.politico.eu/article/viktor-orban-hungary-culture-war-woke-brussels/

I agree wholeheartedly with the thread's heading and your final sentence - "Let's make a good deal for the world" - indeed, I'd argue that it is crucial. However, I couldn't disagree more with the statement from the article, "Whether a “good” or a “bad” peace deal emerges from Alaska makes little difference to Europe’s real priorities – as long as there is peace in the end": If Putin feels like he has got one over Trump - and the West - who knows what he may feel emboldened to do next. Incidentally, it is no surprise to find 'Brussels Signal' holding this view. After all, it's little more than Orban's mouthpiece and he, in turn, is effectively Putin's mole in the EU.

What really is sad is that your belief that your experience, a few anecdotes, some pseudo "science" and a huge dollop of misplaced arrogance gives you a unique insight into relationships and justifies misogyny. Newsflash: It doesn't. Unfortunately, Glynn Wolfe - reportedly the most divorced man in history - is dead. I would rather have taken advice from him about sustaining a relationship than you. Just to avoid any confusion on your part, mentioning you and the late Mr. Wolfe in the same breath is not meant as a compliment to you.

I have not mentioned the UK (or NATO for that matter). My point is simply that if Ukraine were to join the EU, it would not be a proxy state as one poster suggested

I read plenty, thanks. And what does your comment purport to prove? I don't doubt that there are clandestine cells throughout the world operated by the US, France , the UK, etc. Likewise, they are many such cells operated by the Kremlin. And what? That justifies the Russian invasion of Ukraine? You need to think things out more.

Nice theory and outcome but the cost of such development, amongst other things, will make EU (members) think long and hard before agreeing to such a move.

Mods: Please reinstate the 'Confused' emoji. It is badly needed.

There is a very simple explanation for that: There is nothing remotely intellectual in your post. My bad: I was being lazy. The phrase I should have used was 'European NATO members'. So with that in mind please explain what the European NATO members - who are much more powerful and wealthy economically than Russia - would gain from a conflict with Russia? That may well be a quote but it is not one of mine, so I have no idea why you address your reply to me. However, the fact is that Ukraine was militarily neutral from 2010 until September 2022. Once again, not my quote. Others have explained why this analogy does not work.

Excellent questions and imo worthy of their own thread. However, I was simply pointing out that the contention that Ukraine would become a proxy state of the EU were it to become an EU member is flawed. Firstly, the EU is not a state, so the contention is incorrect by definition. Secondly, all EU member states have the same rights and obligations.

I was replying to a comment about Ukraine's potential status in the EU, not NATO, so economics is very much part of that conversation. The NATO/ Ukraine situation is completely different to the Cuba/ US incident. There are no permanent military military bases in mainland Ukraine and there was never the prospect of them appearing until Putin launched his invasion. Ukraine abandoned its' goal of NATO membership in 2010 when it reaffirmed its' neutral status. Ukraine did not re-apply for NATO membership until September 2022 which followed the Russian invasion.

You're right about one thing. It was obvious that there would be two basic points of view: 1) The idea held by rational people that there is no valid reason to exclude +/-50% of the population from voting simply by virtue of their gender 2) the irrational remainder. Actually, you are (partially) right about one other thing. It was highly unlikely that I would be able to avoid criticising those who fall into the second camp. Usually, initially at least, I try to give a reasoned counter-argument if I disagree with something. In this case, a sarcastic comment was the most appropriate response to the nonsense being spouted. It's sad to think that sad, old misogynists such as yourself still exist in the 21st century.

And what good reason is that? Don't believe that a sovereign nation should be allowed to make its' own choices about who it aligns with economically?

Absolute tosh. Basically you are saying that NATO has picked a fight with Russia just to keep itself occupied. You do realise how ridiculous that sounds, don't you? No doubt the US and the EU member states are wary of Russia with good reason, but neither has anything to gain by entering into a conflict. The days when US foreign policy was based on eradicating Communism have long since past and it has no desire to fight another war in Europe. The EU and its' member states are much more powerful and wealthy economically than Russia so, again, they have absolutely nothing to gain from a conflict.

And before Germany became a nation state, Koenigsberg (Kaliningrad) was part of Prussia; all of which is totally irrelevant to my point that this idea that Russia was forced into an invasion of Ukraine by NATO's relentless push to the East is complete nonsense.

That old chestnut again. Russia shares a border with the following NATO countries: Norway, Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Norway was a founder member of NATO in 1949, so it's a bit late for Russia to complain about her membership. Finland was neutral until 2023 and would never have joined NATO if Russia had not invaded Ukraine. Lithuania and Poland share a border with Russia because Russia refuses to hand back land (Kaliningrad) which rightfully belongs to either Lithuania or Poland (Precisely who should own it is another discussion. One thing's for sure, it ain't Russia) Which leaves Estonia and Latvia. Ignoring the fact that there are historical reasons for these two countries to be very wary of Russia and seek the protection of NATO membership, the extent of NATO's push to the East amounts to a shared border of +/-600km and we are to believe that presents an intolerable threat to Russia's security!

If Ukraine were to join the EU it would be a member - not proxy - state.

There was I looking for the 'Asean Now' forum when I inadvertently stumbled across the 'Misogynists Are Us' forum instead.