RayC

I'm not denying that the Amsterdam riot was anti-Jewish but your initial reply could be read as implying both the Belgian and Dutch riots were anti-Jewish which is not the case. In a similar vein to Amsterdam, there was no need for the Brugge "supporters" to go to Molenbeek. They also went there just for confrontation. There's no monopoly when it comes to political violence.

In the Belgium case, it was far-right thugs attacking Muslims.

Really? Straight from the horse's mouth. Sounds a lot like 'A Greater Russia' to me: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 Not in the slightest. You were the one who stated that the West only understands force. Given that, it would only be rational for countries neighbouring Russia to look at them with trepidation. You cannot disagree just because the FACTS do not fit your narrative. Actually you can and have done so here. Nothing you posted remotely justified Russia's annexation of Crimea. "Very deeply co-operating" = agreeing to potentially take part in NATO peacekeeping activities in Afghanistan and Kosovo. Yes, a real threat to Russia's security. The FACT remains that Ukraine was 1) not seeking NATO membership and 2) was non-aligned at the time of Russia's annexation of Ukraine. You mean this explosive expose? http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 Again nothing in this article - assuming that it is all true - justifies annexing another sovereign country's territory. What you are saying amounts to, Ukraine should have ceased all contact with NATO even concerning such activities as peacekeeping in countries such as Kosovo. And on the economic front? Should Ukraine have withdrawn from the Association Agreement with the EU? For an independent country, it doesn't seem like it would have had much independence.

It's not just the laws that prevent elections being held in Ukraine, it's the small matter of a large part of its' infrastructure has been destroyed and a huge number of the electorate displaced. Holding elections in Ukraine now is one of the most bone-headed suggestions I have heard in a long while.

No, the coup had nothing to do with Ukraine - EU relations whereas the Russian annexation of Crimea had a huge bearing on them. However, I will correct myself. Ukraine withdrew its' application for NATO membership in 2010 and was non-aligned until December 2014 when the Ukrainian parliament voted to end its' neutrality. Imo hardly surprising given that her neighbour had annexed its' terrority and was actively supporting separatist rebels. Ukraine did not actually formally re-apply for NATO membership until May 2022 following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

And you think that any of that should have been viewed in Moscow as a threat to Russia's security and a justification for an invasion of a neighbouring sovereign nation? Ukraine was non-aligned for 4 years from 2010 up until Russia's annexation of Crimea. The coup was not CIA 'formented'. The Maiden uprising was a direct result of Yanukovych refusing to sign the EU - Ukraine Association Agreement, which had been passed by the Ukrainian parliament and had the support of > 80% of the Ukrainian electorate. Instead, negating the platform to forge closer ties with the EU on which he was elected, Yanukovych - under pressure from Moscow - did a complete volte face and unilaterally decided to align Ukraine with Russia Over and over what you outlined previously? Can you supply details please? And the vast majority of that is irrelevant and much is incorrect. Wrt Europe, Ukraine had long been looking to develop closer ties with the EU. A signing of the Association Agreement would have, no doubt, lead to a formal application to join the bloc if the annexation of Crimea had not occurred. The fact remains that Ukraine withdrew its' application for NATO membership in 2010, so the 'red line' which you use to justify Russia's actions not only hadn't been crossed but did not exist! The truth of the matter is that Putin is a greater Russia zealot: He does not believe in Ukraine's right to exist as an independent nation. Russia was also not prepared to allow Ukraine to align economically with the West i.e. the EU, as doing so would have further weakened an already fragile Russian economy. So that justified the invasion of Ukraine? Would that also provide a justification for invading the Baltic states or reclaiming the land which Stalin 'gifted' to Poland? Sadly, it appears that we have returned to the post-WW2 situation where Russia is led by an expansionist despot.

An incomplete history. Why stop at 2008? Ahh .... here's why: Ukraine voted to abandon the goal of NATO membership and re-affirm her neutral status in 2010. Ukraine was a non-aligned country when Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014. She only reapplied for NATO membership in December 2014 following the annexation and Moscow's increased support for separatist rebels in Donbass.

Frank, You are unwilling to accept facts. It is irrational to dismiss facts that don't fit your pre-ordained narrative as nothing more than Western propaganda and boll ox and refuse to change your mind. No. (Half-caste is now considered a derogatory phrase. Mixed race is an alternative).

I didn't think this was a thread about Brexit.

So facts are BS and they won't change your mind. I'll just leave that there for all to see.

Fact, noun: a thing that is known or proved to be true. The events which I listed took place. That is known and undeniable. They are therefore, by definition, facts. If you deny this you are, by definition, delusional. Delusional, adjective: characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgements about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, typically as a symptom of a mental condition. All completely irrelevant to the discussion of events in Ukraine in 2014. I vehemently back the Ukrainian people's right to self-determination. Something you obviously don't value. You are peddling a conspiracy theory. Nothing more, nothing less.

No it is not one version of history, it is a chronological listing of events. What the CIA did or didn't do in Latin America in the 1980s is completely irrelevant to the events in Ukraine in 2014. No one in their right mind would welcome an escalation in hostilities but that is a completely different topic. What is under discussion here are the events leading up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

1. Yanukovych was elected on a pro-EU platform 2. In 2014 80% of the Ukrainian public were in favour of closer ties with the EU 3. The Ukrainian parliament had passed a bill approving the signing of the EU - Ukrainian Association Agreement 4. Yanukovych pulled out of a ceremony where this Agreement would be signed 5. Members of Yanukovych's own party voted to depose him as President 6. The Maïdan protests took place following these events If you, RFK or anyone else denies that these events took place, then not only do you know less than me but you are living in an alternative universe. It's ok to admit that you got something wrong. What is not ok is to deny the facts in order to act as an apologist for a despot.

Thanks. My thoughts exactly. Imo you have summed up the thoughts of most Labour supporters.

Indeed, never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy story. Do you dispute that Yanukovych was elected on a pro-EU platform? Do you dispute that the Ukrainian public were overwhelming in favour of closer ties with the EU (>80% approval ratings)? Do you dispute that the Ukrainian parliament had passed a bill approving the signing of the EU - Ukrainian Association Agreement formally establishing economic and political ties between the parties? Do you dispute that despite Parliamentary approval and his own campaign promises, Yanukovych - under pressure from Moscow which had imposed restrictions on Ukrainian imports - unilaterally pulled out of a ceremony where this Agreement would be endorsed? Do you dispute that members of Yanukovych's own party voted to replace him as President in light of these events? Do you dispute that the Maidan protests were as a result of these events? That is not opinion. That is fact. So If you do dispute any of that, then you are denying facts. So while the US may well have funneled 5 billion into Ukraine and Victoria Nuland may well have discussed who the US's favoured Presidential replacement would be, the US did not orchestrate a coup, oust a democratically elected pro Russian leader and install a pro-EU one. The Ukrainian people ousted a President who had done a complete volte face and replaced him with someone who would implement the will of over 80% of the electorate. Accept reality, take your heads out of the sand and stop acting as apologists for Putin.

The analogy with the events in the US in January 2022 is a false one. That involved some US citizens refusing to accept the result of a free and fair election. Imo a better analogy is Brexit and the 2019 British General Election. Boris Johnson was elected on a platform to 'Get Brexit done' I.e. implement the UK's electorate's decision to leave the EU. If Johnson had decided instead not to leave the EU but instead forge closer ties with the EU, then I don't think Brexit supporters could have been blamed for taking to the streets (and I say that as a Brit who is strongly pro-EU).

Thanks, Trans. Welcome back. Looking forward to the return of the crystal ball😉

Although the US may have fanned the flames, the Maiden Revolution was not initiated by the US. The fire was lit by ordinary Ukrainian citizens taking to the streets to object to Yanukovych ignoring the platform on which he was elected i.e. to develop closer economic ties with the EU, and instead doing a complete volte face and - under pressure from Moscow - aligning Ukraine economically with Russia. This root cause of this war is economic, with a dose of Putin's belief in a Greater Russia comprising of Belarus and Ukraine thrown in for good measure. Pre-war Ukraine was Russia's third biggest trading partner (behind China and the EU). Russia had been pressurising Ukraine to join a customs union with it for some time. Instead, Ukraine looked West and sought closer ties with the EU, something that Putin was unable to accept as it would be a major blow to the Russian economy; hence, the escalation of hostilities towards Ukraine starting in 2014. The invasion in 2022 was the end result. You can introduce as many non sequiturs as you like. The truth of the matter is that Russia was the instigator of this war.

Then it should be very long until reports in the conservative media outside of the UK start to appear.

I apologise. No I don't think the next 42 by-elections will offer any respite for Labour. Nor do I think that even if they lose control of every one of those councils that Starmer will be ousted from power as a consequence. Come the first of November when - assuming there is no scandal - Starmer is still PM you can admit that you were wrong.

There is dissatisfaction with the government's performance, both in the country as a whole and the Labour party in particular. That is undeniable. However, that - and the fact that polls have Starmer/ Labour trailing in the polls - is almost completely irrelevant at this point in time. The government is not about to call a GE tomorrow. If things haven't improved by the second half of 2026, then Starmer's position may come under threat. Currently, imo he is safe. Perhaps because of his support for Ukraine. Smart money will stay on the sidelines

I'll admit that I confused the figures for the May elections with the total number of councils in England but nevertheless my point holds. Unless there is a scandal, the chances of the Labour PLP or NEC ousting a PM, who delivered a 174-seat majority in parliament less than a year ago, on the back of some bad results in local council elections is negligible. Clueless? Yes that about sums it up if you believe that Starmer will no longer be PM in November (unless there is a scandal).

I agree with your sentiments. The dying should never have started. That it did is down to one man and his supporters. That it won't stop is down to the same cabal.

Most might be but most victims of arson aren't politicians. Three completely unrelated incidents which have no bearing on this case. You have clearly decided what are the reasons for this attack. I'll remain open-minded and see what comes out at the trial. Only you know whether that is misinformation or disinformation. In any event, it is simply not true. Labour fielded candidates in over 95% of wards. Going into the election, Labour had 6 322 councillors. Afterwards it had 6 124, a decline of +/-3%. The NEC won't welcome any losses but the idea that the loss of the likes of Basildon council will see them oust Starmer is wishful thinking on your part. If things don't improve the mutterings about Starmer's leadership will, no doubt, grow louder but - notwithstanding what might be revealed in the arson case - the chances of him going before this time next year are very slim.

Each and every arson attack is personal? You know that for a fact? If it was a sting operation organised by a foreign power, I'd imagine that they would have sufficient resources to do background research on Starmer, wouldn't you? There were 1,641 by-elections in May. The results were not good for Labour but there was no pressure on Starmer to resign. However, you think that the results of 42 by-election results in the next 2 months will be enough to force Starmer from office? And you call me naive😂