RayC

In the very majority of countries, individuals had the choice whether to take a vacinne. By the other 'solutions' I assume that you are referring to lockdowns, mandatory mask wearing, etc? Opinions differ as to whether such measures were excessive but, irrespective of whether that was so, how could any government have enacted solutions tailored for individuals?

Well, at least we are similar in that regard

My replies to you are, by definition, personal. I do not intend to offend you but, on the 'Ukraine issue', I disagree with your comments vehemently. I have been direct in stating my disagreement but I do not believe that I have been offensive towards you personally.

It's pure conjecture on all our parts what happens next: Are we entering another long 'cold war'? The US funded 30-odd years of the last one; would it do so again? Could the EU - together with the UK - take the lead from a US-led NATO in defending Europe with the US committed to supporting in the event of a war?

I don't think that I've ever read such perfect written English from a Russian. My compliments, sir 👍. Out of curiosity do you speak with a Russian accent?

I can imagine that Blair may have some influence on Starmer if the latter becomes PM, as they appear to have similar views on many issues. Corbyn? Can you elaborate on how he might influence a PM Starmer. They don't appear to have much in common politically, and probably aren't drinking buddies.

Perhaps you should act your own advice in that case.

So long as you post comments which I disagree with l will post what I consider to be valid responses: As others have said, it's a public forum so you should expect to be challenged about your posts I am not trying to bait you into saying something unintentional, I am pointing out what I consider to be flaws in your rationale. You clearly do not wish to address my challenges to your argument directly which is obviously your choice.

Given that Corbyn will not be a Labour MP in the next Parliament, it's pretty certain that he will not be a member of any Labour government.

There is no perfect electoral system. There are many problems with PR, but at least it has the benefit of ensuring that all individual votes matter to some extent. The main benefit claimed for a FPTP system is that it delivers 'strong' government. The governance of the UK since 2016 suggests otherwise.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

But there is plenty in your posts as a collective to support the view that you are an apologist for Russia's actions in Ukraine. By your rationale, the governance of Ukraine has nothing to do with anyone apart from the Ukrainians. Fine. If only Putin would agree with your view. Much as it irks you to acknowledge the parallels with '30s Europe, they exist: The dangers of the liberal democracies of Europe (and the US) passively accepting aggressive land-grabs by totalitarian states such as Putin's Russia are clearly obvious. Why anyone would seek to defend such aggressors is beyond me and you have been completely unable to offer any justification. Next.

So the 'undefeatable' Russia maintains its' record by ensuring the end of life on Earth? Great!

Ok, here's the 'Next'. I explained why the comparison was valid and not baiting. Your inability to explain the obvious contradiction in your position says it all.

I agree that we should hope that sanity prevails in Congress. That would result in the US continuing to support Ukraine financially and militarily with the eventual withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine to follow. The eviction of Putin from the Kremlin would also be a useful by-product of a Ukrainian victory.

Even more predictable that you would counter with an article from the Daily Mail!

Maybe not but NATO still has a bigger conventional arsenal than Russia.

And you wonder why you get labelled as a Russian supporter?

In amongst the reportage in the Western Press, there is, of course, propaganda but so what? It doesn't alter the underlying fact that Russia used the Euromaiden protests as an excuse to invade Crimea and a process of 'de-nazification' to invade the rest of Ukraine last year. Do you think either justification holds water? I don't. I don't know why you think Russia cannot be defeated? Because of its' nuclear arsenal? If so, the same argument could be used for the US and the other nuclear powers. Mutually assured destruction, etc. Interesting that you consider the comparison between Ukraine in 2023 and the UK in 1940 off-topic, but introduce European colonialism in Siam into the conversation. Imo Chulalongkorn played a bad hand very well. Unfortunately, a more recent example of ceding land in Europe i.e. the Sudetenland didn't have such a happy ending.

And perhaps also because it is a bit close to the truth?

Why do you consider it to be an insult? Definition of an apologist: Someone who offers an argument in defence of something controversial. Seems pretty apt to me.

Why would an "undefeatable opponent" need to negotiate? If Russia is undefeatable, why would she stop once Ukraine is conquered? Unfortunately there are already a lot of widows and fatherless children. As others have pointed out, a simple way of avoiding adding to their numbers would be for Russia to cease hostilities and withdraw from Ukraine immediately. The events in the Middle East and the political debacle that currently exists in the US certainly doesn't further the Ukrainian cause. Hopefully, Congress will soon be able to pass a bill approving ongoing assistance to Ukraine. If the US, NATO and Europe stand together in support of Ukraine, then imo the conflict is unlikely to end any time soon as Ukraine is unlikely to back down. Sadly, there will more loss of life. The simple - and morally correct - solution which I suggested above, is for Russia to withdraw. Unfortunately, I accept that this is also unlikely to happen. You have raised this point before and I offered evidence to counter it. To repeat, Hungary has always been lukewarm in its' support. Polish support is more complex but, in any event, with the likely formation of a Tusk administration imo support from the Polish government will solidify: There is little evidence to suggest that the other EU states and the UK will withdraw support. Public support from continuing aid to Ukraine still remains well above 50% in most EU states and in the UK. Not a baiting question at all; just an obvious comparison: You state here that Russia is undefeatable. Many in the UK political elite e.g. Halifax believed the same of Germany in 1940 and were in favour of a negotiated peace. If that had happened, I very much doubt that we would be engaging in this type of free speech now.

A very long time ago, 'The Express' could claim to be a passable imitation of a serious newspaper. Nowadays it ranks below 'The Star' wrt publishing anything resembling a fact.

So Ukraine should just capitulate and give in to Russian demands? It appears that acting as an apologist for an invading aggressor makes you happy. As an (off-topic) aside, do you think that the UK should have just capitulated in 1940?

Assuming this is correct, do you consider it to be a positive development?