RayC

Your misplaced arrogance and delusion that you are some sort of oracle dispatching wisdom from on high is laughable. Your inability to accept basic logical reasoning illustrates that. Initially you made the factually incorrect claim that France and Germany were in favour of NATO expansion and cited this as evidence to support your theory. You now cite the fact that France and Germany were against NATO expansion as evidence in favour of your theory. I'll be generous and call this muddled thinking. That is unsurprisingly given that you have been unable to address any of my other points up to now. No Yes. Imo it goes further than that i.e the rise of India, the increased political power of the EU as a bloc, the formation of other regional blocks. See previous paragraph. Imo the US remains the dominant force. China's economic woes are a setback to its' ambitions. Russia's influence was waning which imo is one - perhaps, "the" - reason why it invaded Ukraine. I dispute the idea that three is the magic number. No. As you can see from the above, unlike you I address questions directly. For once, you are correct. I do dispute your contention that the US induced Russia to attack Ukraine. It didn't. No. Generally speaking, I think that in common with other nations, the US acts according to what it perceives as its' own best interests. So, now that we have established all that, how does destabilizing central Europe help protect (increase?) US hegemony? In a previous post, I posed the following question to you which, unsurprisingly, remains unanswered: "What has been achieved from a US perspective (by this war)? True, NATO appears to have acquired more resolve .... and added a couple of new members (Finland and Sweden), but that can hardly be called success. Indeed, Russia is still standing and if it is victorious in this war will, arguably, be stronger politically with the US shown to be weaker. Surely, if your theory is correct, the US will want to avoid this outcome at all costs and would continue funding Ukraine?" Almost certainly the wiser thing that you have said. It's just a shame that you couldn't have adopted this position at the outset. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! You're almost certainly correct. I feel that that we might part on a positive note. You too, honey.

Let's return to basics. In your rush to curb immigration, you miss the main reason for it: Immigrants are needed to provide labour which the UK is unable to source locally. One estimate suggests that this proposed legislation will cut applications by 300,000. Great for the numbers but it does beg the question, who will do the work? How about answering this one then? Why would an increase in illegal migration have anything to do with legal migration?

In the words of the UK's recently appointed foreign secretary and former PM, David Cameron: "Calm down, dear!". Let's get some facts straight. Firstly, the only evidence that you previously posted was Burns' quote. You have not mentioned any of the other sources up to now. More importantly, let's for the sake of argument assume that Russia invaded Ukraine in order to prevent further NATO expansion. Even if true, this is in no way sufficient to prove your original contention about the war being due to a US-led unipolar hegemony. As I pointed out in my original reply to you, the US remains influential in Europe and is the driving force in NATO but the EU is highly influential in the region as well, and often holds an opposing view to the US. An example of this is Ukraine's application to join NATO. Contrary to your claim that France and Germany were in favour of the application, the opposite is true https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220404-merkel-defends-2008-decision-to-block-ukraine-from-nato I will go even further in playing devil's advocate, let's assume that your premise about this war all being about a US-led unipolar hegemony is correct. Why would the US decide to act now? Surely the annexation of Crimea in 2014 offered just as good an opportunity? More importantly, if this invasion is all part of a plan to reinforce US hegemony, why would Congress think about cutting funds now? What has been achieved from a US perspective? True, NATO appears to have acquired more resolve as illustrated in the Sachs' link which you posted and added a couple of new members (Finland and Sweden), but that can hardly be called success. Indeed, Russia is still standing and if it is victorious in this war will, arguably, be stronger politically with the US shown to be weaker. Surely, if your theory is correct, the US will want to avoid this outcome at all costs and would continue funding Ukraine? I believe that the truth is somewhat more mundane: Putin is an unreconstructed KGB man who yearns for the return of a Russian dominated Central and Eastern Europe. This is nicely outlined in a previously posted link by Kwonitoy (reposted here for ease of reference). Yes, of course it is a bias source but imo the gist of the story rings true. https://war.ukraine.ua/why-is-russia-invading-ukraine/ In answer to your other questions: No I have not being living under a rock or a bridge. My question to you: Do you have any more online meetings planned with your fellow conspiracy theorists? If so, would it be possible for me to attend as an observer? I'd like to see first-hand how these things work, although I should warn you that I'll probably drop out when it starts to become really absurd.

And that is the problem. The UK visa requirements are morally repugnant. I doubt that if the UK were to relax its' visa requirements that the birth rate in the developing world would increase dramatically.

You're being absurd by suggesting that I'm trolling. The answer to each of your question is 'No' but that doesn't mean it is morally right. What level of discrimination against non-nationals do you consider acceptable?

Maybe they should be. As I said in a previous post I don't condone the discrimination which exists in Thailand but that means that we should ape it in the UK. For a supposedly enlightened country, it's becoming increasingly dark in the UK.

You seem to assume that anyone wishing to immigrate to the UK or, perish the thought, bring their partner and family with them is a ne'er do well who is on the make. Why would an increase in illegal mitigation have anything to do with legal mitigation?

Yep it's ridiculous that someone should consider it an entitlement to be able to live with their partner and kids.

You're right. My mistake. They are excluded. However, in my defence I interpreted your original post as a proposition which should apply universally.

Institutionally discriminating against a certain group in society. Doesn't history illustrate the dangers in doing that?

The promotion of discrimination is overwhelming.

When I lived in Belgium, apart from being ineligible to serve in the Belgian state institutions and stand/vote in national elections, I can't think of any additional rights denied to me which were granted to native-born Belgians. Imo I should have been allowed to vote but, other than that, I'd say that I was treated very equitably.

Absolute tosh. The number of spouses accompanying returning Brits is about 5% of the total number of annual migrants (+/-50k). The number of " ... freeloaders targeting hoping to get a visa by marrying a Brit loser" - as you so charmingly put it - is miniscule.

I agree that this is an attempt by the Tories to stop their support migrating (pun intended) to Reform but, if they are to have any chance of that happening, they will need to enact this proposal: Dropping it will make them look even more forlorn.

"Cry racism all you like ..." Ok, it's racist (or xenophobic). The fact that other nations such as Thailand also have laws which discriminate against non-nationals is no justification.

Cue (next) nursing crisis in the NHS.

We are going round in circles! It is not "very simple ...full stop period" because the statement "Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO" is not - as I have pointed out previously - an 'a prori truth' i.e. true in itself and not requiring any further justification. In order for the statement: "Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO" to have validity, it needs evidence to support it. To date, you haven't supplied any, other than another theory about Russia securing the only avenue by which it might be attacked. This latter theory has been debunked by geographical fact. It is not in the slightest bit difficult to understand that because it is (overly) simplistic. However - repeating myself for the umpteenth time - simply stating it does not make it necessarily true. You need to supply evidence to support this premise. You haven't done so. How difficult is that to understand? Another competing theory is that Russia - or more specifically, Putin - does not recognise the right of Ukraine to exist as a sovereign nation. Evidence for this premise exists: Google it! Intuitively, one. And your point is? You surely don't consider this constitutes sufficient evidence to support your premise?

😂That last sentence is a priceless example of the pot calling the kettle black. Imo those who are unable to compose a rational, coherent argument to support their premise usually fall back on tired excuses such as labelling their opponents close-minded, MSM bias or a variety of assorted conspiracy theories.

I'm a member of your 'Ignore' club. I have never insulted you unless you believe that labelling you a 'Putjn apologist' is an insult. Rather than make a big show of using the 'Ignore' card every time you realise your rationale doesn't add up, why don't simply quietly let the matter drop?

I'm pleased that you are happy with my 'compliment'. I imagine that I will have more opportunities in the future to be even more complimentary. I wasn't aware that "some" were finding it difficult to keep up. Perhaps, you could point out instances of where this has occurred and I'll help out if I can. My offer is, of course, open to you as well if you find yourself struggling. Correct. But the 'simple' fact is that you misunderstood and therefore misrepresented a comment of mine (deliberately or not?🤔) which was an error irrespective of whether it was a lack of clarity on my part or a lack of nous on yours.

We can agree on both these points You offered a premise based around a theory about a US-led unipolar hegemony. You have not offered any evidence, other than another a disproved contention about Russia cutting off the only possible route for a hypothetical NATO invasion, to support your premise. See above and also my first two replies to you. You have not answered the questions which I raised. The map is superfluous. You state this as if it were an a priori truth. It is not. I cannot explain why I disagree with you because I do not think that you have explained your theory adequately (apologies if that sounds rude). This again relates to my original questions. I do not understand your answers: Why and how, did US hegemony 'force' Russia to invade Ukraine? Simply stating that Russia invaded Ukraine to keep it neutral is not proof. It is just another contention that requires proof. In any event, it certainly isn't a moral justification (reason) for invading Russia. I also countered by suggesting that, although the US remains important in Europe, its' influence is decreasing and that the EU is becoming increasingly important: I think that that you have suggested that the EU is being used by the US? My interpretation of your view of the EU/US relationship may well be completely incorrect as, again, I have been unable to understand your explanation. I have already learnt a new phrase 'unipolar theory', so that's something. I am quite prepared to accept that I am wrong but, in order to do so, I firstly have to understand what, why and how your theory is correct. At the moment, I don't understand any of those three things.

That's what I'm asking you to explain! Isn't that what you are claiming?

I didn't because your contention that, "With a neutral Ukraine, any invasion against Russia would need to come through the The Suwalki Corridor. This not opinion, this is fact." is incorrect. Unless you supply evidence to suggest that any hypothetical NATO attack could not come via Estonia, Finland or Latvia I don't see what there is discuss on this point.

The bit about the reason for the invasion being due to a US-led unipolar hegemonic order

Do media outlets have bias? Of course they do? Are editors selective in what they choose to publish? Again, no doubt. However, the absence of certain stories from the Western media doesn't mean that they are true. They might not be published because there is no substance to them. Russia (excluding Kaliningrad) shares land borders with Estonia, Finland and Latvia. I'm no military strategist and can't claim any knowledge of the terrain in this region but, in the extremely unlikely event that NATO chose to invade Russia, why couldn't it launch an attack via this area? I'm not being disrespectful when I suggest that this all sounds like a conspiracy theory without any substance to me.