RayC

The post above demonstrates a rational and refreshingly open-minded approach... The post below not so much ....

This will prove to be the most accurate and best comment in the entire thread ..... or is that just speculation?😉

I agree that Russia will not accept Ukraine's terms and also that it currently has the upper hand. However, Ukraine shows no sign of wishing to negotiate under Russian terms and the situation - both politically and militarily - is fluid therefore, unfortunately, the war continues. I assume that you have noticed this? I am surprised that you have not heard of this narrative previously. It is common knowledge and I certainly can't claim credit for it. Many other learned scholars disagreed with Messrs Mearsheimer and Sachs' interpretation of events: An open letter from these scholars offers a compelling case for rejecting the Mearsheimer/ Sachs hypothesis: https://web.archive.org/web/20230806172854/https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey-sachs-on-the-russia-ukraine-war/ However you are, of course, free to overlook these objections and maintain your support for Mearsheimer/ Sachs premise. There is little doubt that Russia is responsible for the current war. The question is whether the timing of the events in 2014 were pre-planned or whether Putin panicked as a result of the overthrow of his ally, Yanukovych? I favour the latter explanation but am open to persuasion.

Yes really. Ukraine is not willing to compromise on it's stated position i.e. that for formal talks to commence, Russia would have to leave the occupied areas and there would be no pre-conditions about Ukraine's future membership of NATO. Russia could accept Ukraine's terms and negotiations about the future could then commence. I assume that you realise this? Before 2014, the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO was slim. Neither the Ukraine government nor the public had much appetite for it and many NATO members - notably Germany - were against it. Putin's overreaction to Yanukovych's removal - which was about EU, not NATO, membership - by invading Crimea and the Dombass changed things. Even so, despite this obvious Russian aggression, there was little immediate prospect of Ukraine becoming a NATO member. The full-scale invasion in 2022 changed the narrative completely. The current situation is of Putin's making. (Postscript: No idea why some text appears in larger font)

(I doubt that this will receive a reply as I'm on @Thaibeachlover's ignore list for having the audacity to point out his falsehoods in a previous exchange. Anyway ....) More evasion on your part. Sadly there are many conflicts going on in the world. However, this thread is about the war in Ukraine and you were posed a direct question about It, not about any other. So, once again, will you condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine? It's a simple 'Yes' or 'No' answer even if - playing Devil's Advocate - it's accepted that Russia might have grounds for feeling aggrieved at its' treatment by the West in the past.

But that isn't Putin's only condition. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/articles/c033eyyr20do.amp Puts a different complexion on things, doesn't it?

Deleted. Duplicates Candide's post (Note to self: Read the latest posts before replying🤦)

Deleted. Duplicates Pickwick's post.

"(The UK) had a socialist leaning society back then (in the 1980s)". The same society in the same decade which happened to elect Margaret Thatcher as PM on three consecutive occasions. You couldn't make this stuff up although apparently you can.

US companies have land holdings throughout the world so I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

The USSR no longer exists. Ukraine became a sovereign nation in 1991. Her resources are her own.

The economic cost of WW2 was huge. It wrecked the economies of Europe. There was rationing of food in many countries long after hostilities ended. Was all that hardship worth it? Undoubtedly yes given the alternative. The same is true today wrt Ukraine.

Then it's simple. Get Biden to stand down (any which way) and problems solved: Two birds with one stone so to speak. On the other hand, the chances of Trump standing aside voluntarily are about as slim as me becoming President (and I wasn't born in the US).

Given the extremely poor performance by Ensemble! in the recent European elections, I find it difficult to understand why Macron believed that the French electorate would turn to him in a national election. While Macron was far short of a majority in the French parliament prior to this recent election, he was able to get some legislation passed by horse trading with some of the Les Républicains MPs and by using Presidential Executive Orders (Article 49.3 provision). Both those options are now off the table. Imo Macron joins an ever increasing list of PMs/ Presidents who have put their own personal ambition before that of the country.

Obviously COVID, wars, etc affected all politicians' ability to pursue their goals, but even allowing for these events, imo Macron's record will be viewed as mixed at best. Like most politicians, Macron had successes and failures. On the economic front, his liberalisation of the overly restrictive French labour laws could be labelled a success. On the other hand, the imposition of the regressive petrol tax - which led to the rise of the 'Gilets Jaunes' - was unsurprisingly a failure both economically and socially. Macron's foreign policy exploits run a similar course. Imo his hard line against Putin is the morally correct course of action but his criticism of the US, Turkey and others is unnecessary and alienates allies. However, imo history will ultimately judge Macron on the basis of one event i.e. the calling of this unnecessary election and its' aftermath. Why did he call it? Imo largely because he is an arrogant narcissist, traits which he displayed on numerous previous occasions. I usually agree with @JonnyF about as often as Halley's Comet makes an appearance but, on the occasion, imo he makes some valid points: France is now left in a political mess. It is hard to see how it can be governed effectively until the next presidential election in 2027. It may also be the case that the second round of the Presidency will be a contest between Le Pen and Melenchon. If that happens, France and EU will need all the help it can get.

I've just spoken with H. and he's naturally extremely disappointed with your reactions. Nevertheless, he said that your're always welcome at his place if you change your minds.

Proves what? Given that Starmer was a member of the Labour Young Socialists while at school and the Labour club at university, I'd hazard a guess that there's a fair chance that he voted Labour in any elections.

Don't forget women and the working class. Democracy in the UK has never been the same since those groups were allowed to vote. I blame the Whigs and their progressive ideas.

National Rally conspired in exactly the same way by not standing in seats where The Union of the Far Right had candidates more likely to win. Presumably you also think that National Rally have made a massive strategic error which will backfire?

Given that NATO and Russia are both nuclear powers, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction - which has the appropriate acronym MAD - would probably ensure that in the event of Russia launching a first strike nuclear attack Moscow, St. Petersburg and various other Russian cities will be razed to the ground. There is a simple solution: Putin withdraws Russian troops from Ukraine and respects Ukraine's international borders. Unfortunately, that outcome is about as likely as me winning the €50m Euro millions jackpot.

Thanks for posting that interesting article. The UK acting in isolation isn't going to greatly affect emissions, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't act: Someone has to take the lead. Imo all nations act in what they perceive as being in their own best interests rather than on behalf of "Team World".

Russian propaganda. Starmer pledged to continue the support shown to Ukraine by the previous Tory administrations which imo is the correct thing to do. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rferl.org/amp/uk-elections-ukraine-labour-starmer/33022866.html

I agree that the cost of net zero should be estimated, although that that calculation will involve a lot more complexity than some basic maths. Notwithstanding that, in your original post you seemed to reject "globalism"*? How can the UK thrive if it does? * Tbh I am never sure what people mean when they reject "globalism/ globalisation"? What is the alternative? Acting in isolation? Imo that is both undesirable and impractical.

How does an individual nation thrive then?

You either believe in FPTP or you don't. Which is it?