Ukraine Winning War, Retired U.S. Generals Say

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

Its his job to do so. Sees a story that is a maybe a bit pro-Ukrainian. Cues up whatever random YT video that can counteract that, even if it includes low quality sources like the Hindustan Times.

That guy is pro Kremlin actually.

17 hours ago, thaibreaker said:

I couldn't care less of what this general says. Or you. I'm all in for facts, by following this war closely.

And the general is not wrong.

I guess it depends where you get your info from. If you get it from pro-Ukrainian sources then yes, you would agree. If you look beyond to neutral analyses you would discover that it's true that Ukraine has recaptured territory but it's also the case that Russian troops continue to capture new territory. You would also see that Kostiantynivka is in serious trouble as shown in these maps.

https://deepstatemap.live/en/#11/48.5214464/37.7649601

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?hl=en&mid=1thW9kqnDOaS2lAepLhLdzSX8Ur9Sc4k&ll=48.51615561075334%2C37.75939238472839&z=12

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

That guy is pro Kremlin actually.

Which is what I said. He's a Tankie.

5 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

5 hours ago, thaibreaker said:

I indeed expect countries and residents of Europe to pay to help Ukrainians still have a free and independent country, yes. And they do. That is a good investment for a future safe and peaceful Europe. Well spent money imo, so our kids will have a safe place to grow up.

You ask where I come from.

I'm a Norwegian, lucky enough to escape the godforsaken Russia a long, long time ago.

So, as a Norwegian, with borders to Russia, I'm well aware of the threats from our neighbor. We have lived with that from big Ivan for decades (Svalbard etc.). One day it might blow up here as well, now when we cannot longer trust the US to come to our rescue.

I definitely do not want our schools to teach Russian, and our population to speak it in the future.

4 hours ago, dinsdale said:

I guess it depends where you get your info from. If you get it from pro-Ukrainian sources then yes, you would agree. If you look beyond to neutral analyses you would discover that it's true that Ukraine has recaptured territory but it's also the case that Russian troops continue to capture new territory. You would also see that Kostiantynivka is in serious trouble as shown in these maps.

https://deepstatemap.live/en/#11/48.5214464/37.7649601

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?hl=en&mid=1thW9kqnDOaS2lAepLhLdzSX8Ur9Sc4k&ll=48.51615561075334%2C37.75939238472839&z=12

I'm of course talking about netto gains. Ukraine has the last 3 months gained more territory than Russia has. It's is reported not only on "western news".

The tide has turned. ISW is a very trustworthy source. But a couple of very popular Russian war bloggers confirm it too. They have no reason to lie in favour of Ukraine. They report that Russian soldiers are also surrounded at several spots, cut off from supplies, and that the maps aren't catching up on that yet. There are also withdrawals at a couple of areas.

It's a very long fighting/conflict border. The border between the countries is more than 1500 km long, with around 1200 in the conflict zone of this war.

In addition, and more importantly, today's fighting costs Russia more and more in manpower. These last weeks show a significant increase in daily eliminated Russian soldiers. Drones have taken over the elimination more and more at these areas, and Ukraine is in front in the drone war.

Russia is now losing significant more personnel than are recruited.

1 hour ago, thaibreaker said:

You ask where I come from.

I'm a Norwegian, lucky enough to escape the godforsaken Russia a long, long time ago.

So, as a Norwegian, with borders to Russia, I'm well aware of the threats from our neighbor. We have lived with that from big Ivan for decades (Svalbard etc.). One day it might blow up here as well, now when we cannot longer trust the US to come to our rescue.

I definitely do not want our schools to teach Russian, and our population to speak it in the future.

Ah yes, Norway. You gave the English language the word "quisling" and invaded our country centuries before any Muslims arrived, bringing your own share of rape and pillage. If Israel is free to define their history from whatever point they choose, then I claim exactly the same right.

I will repeat: if Russia's neighbours wish to spend vast sums on defence and engage in sabre-rattling, that is their choice. Be my guest. What I do not want is for Great Britain to be drawn into other people's conflicts.

As for the Baltic states, their rhetoric is often far more confrontational than their size would suggest, and I am not convinced they have always mastered the finer arts of diplomacy. It is also worth remembering that, like parts of Ukraine and indeed Norway, some individuals and movements in those countries collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War, and volunteers from several occupied nations served with vicious and genocidal intent in Waffen-SS formations.

History is complicated, and no nation emerges from it with entirely clean hands. That is precisely why I am wary of being asked to treat every modern geopolitical dispute as a simple struggle between good and evil which the Ukrainophiles seem intent on.

Russia does not equal Nazi Germany - by a long mile - and I like many others don't wish to make them both our enemy and have a target on our backs.

1 hour ago, thaibreaker said:

I'm of course talking about netto gains. Ukraine has the last 3 months gained more territory than Russia has. It's is reported not only on "western news".

The tide has turned. ISW is a very trustworthy source. But a couple of very popular Russian war bloggers confirm it too. They have no reason to lie in favour of Ukraine. They report that Russian soldiers are also surrounded at several spots, cut off from supplies, and that the maps aren't catching up on that yet. There are also withdrawals at a couple of areas.

It's a very long fighting/conflict border. The border between the countries is more than 1500 km long, with around 1200 in the conflict zone of this war.

In addition, and more importantly, today's fighting costs Russia more and more in manpower. These last weeks show a significant increase in daily eliminated Russian soldiers. Drones have taken over the elimination more and more at these areas, and Ukraine is in front in the drone war.

Russia is now losing significant more personnel than are recruited.

Ah yes, ISW the think tank funded in part by the very military-industrial interests that profit from war. Forgive me if I take their analysis with a pinch of salt.

If you genuinely care about Ukraine, your priority should be straining every sinew to bring this bloody war to an end, not cheerleading it from the sidelines. This is not a video game. Every month the war drags on means more dead, more wounded, more displaced, and more destruction.

Nobody is truly winning. Russia has paid an enormous price in blood and treasure, while Ukraine has been devastated. Whatever the outcome, when the foreign money and military aid eventually diminish, Ukraine may find itself facing immense challenges: a shattered economy, a demographic crisis, millions of citizens who may never return, and entire regions reduced to ruins. The prospect of political instability and bitter divisions among heavily armed factions cannot simply be wished away.

The tragedy is that what should have been a limited regional conflict was transformed into a grand ideological crusade. Years later, the result is a country scarred by war, cities and towns laid waste, and a generation sacrificed. Those celebrating the continuation of the conflict from the comfort of distant capitals should reflect on the human cost of every additional month of fighting. Azov will rediscover their Nazi roots which is probably why Zelensky so performatively laid flowers at their wartime heroes grave.

Off topic troll post removed @DaddyWarbucks

Watch and learn how to fight a war with no cards and scant help the Ukrainians are smashing the hell out of the filthy Russians Crimea' river Putin.

1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Ah yes, Norway. You gave the English language the word "quisling" and invaded our country centuries before any Muslims arrived, bringing your own share of rape and pillage. If Israel is free to define their history from whatever point they choose, then I claim exactly the same right.

Are you freaking kidding me? Jeeez.

Our conversation is over.

39 minutes ago, Tidal wave said:

Watch and learn how to fight a war with no cards and scant help the Ukrainians are smashing the hell out of the filthy Russians Crimea' river Putin.

Yes, Trump said over and over again that Ukraine had no cards..

How wrong he was.. 🤣

3 minutes ago, thaibreaker said:

Are you freaking kidding me? Jeeez.

Our conversation is over.

Having worked, albeit very briefly, in Norway, I appreciate the Scandinavian reputation for candour and forthrightness. That said, I also remember lunches with the NPD as being remarkably sparse and featuring an extraordinary quantity of fish products. Skål!

As for Zelensky's laying of flowers at the memorial of the OUN leader, I see it as broadly analogous to a Norwegian politician paying tribute to Vidkun Quisling. Both men viewed their collaboration with Nazi Germany primarily through the lens of anti-Bolshevism, regardless of how history ultimately judged their choices.

2 minutes ago, thaibreaker said:

Yes, Trump said over and over again that Ukraine had no cards..

How wrong he was.. 🤣

Trump is a moron only out for profits for his own family and billionaire cronies.

He's not a real American president that actually cares about U.S. geopolitical interests.

Also, of course he worships Putin because he wish he could be like him, and despises Zelinsky with a passion.

Ukraine and Europe have correctly finally given up all hope that Trump will change on that.

4 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I will repeat: if Russia's neighbours wish to spend vast sums on defence and engage in sabre-rattling, that is their choice. Be my guest. What I do not want is for Great Britain to be drawn into other people's conflicts.

As for the Baltic states, their rhetoric is often far more confrontational than their size would suggest, and I am not convinced they have always mastered the finer arts of diplomacy. It is also worth remembering that, like parts of Ukraine and indeed Norway, some individuals and movements in those countries collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War, and volunteers from several occupied nations served with vicious and genocidal intent in Waffen-SS formations.

History is complicated, and no nation emerges from it with entirely clean hands. That is precisely why I am wary of being asked to treat every modern geopolitical dispute as a simple struggle between good and evil which the Ukrainophiles seem intent on.

Ah. How fantastic indeed it is that we should be so concerned about a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.

Historical quotations aside, the import is: pay a little now to help Ukraine defend itself, or be prepared to pay a hell of a lot more down the road, in blood and treasure, when appeasement once again turns out to be a losing strategy.

As for the Balts, I’m sorry that we’re such a nuisance, but we honestly don’t accept being relegated to Russia’s “sphere of influence,” or whatever 19th-century concepts you’re operating under. We have a great deal more direct experience with Russian imperialism than you ever will, and the “finer arts of diplomacy” are rarely of much use here. But we’re trying! I promise!

Of course many Balts (and others in northern and eastern Europe) sided with the invading Germans against the Russians, partly for historical associations, but also, as my mother put it, Balts were pretty certain that the Nazis would eventually lose the war, while the Russians would always be there. (Also, Estonia, at least, had a minuscule Jewish population in 1940, so that particular horror of Nazism was not as evident there [though the few thousand Jews who lived in Estonia were of course killed, some at the hands of ethnic Estonians in the employ of the Nazis, including one of my mother’s classmates]. In this regard, I can’t speak for Latvia or especially Lithuania, which had far more substantial Jewish populations.)

You’re right: history is complicated. However, when it comes to appeasing dictators, the answer is simple: Don’t do it!

47 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

Ah. How fantastic indeed it is that we should be so concerned about a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.

Historical quotations aside, the import is: pay a little now to help Ukraine defend itself, or be prepared to pay a hell of a lot more down the road, in blood and treasure, when appeasement once again turns out to be a losing strategy.

 

As for the Balts, I’m sorry that we’re such a nuisance, but we honestly don’t accept being relegated to Russia’s “sphere of influence,” or whatever 19th-century concepts you’re operating under. We have a great deal more direct experience with Russian imperialism than you ever will, and the “finer arts of diplomacy” are rarely of much use here. But we’re trying! I promise!

 

Of course many Balts (and others in northern and eastern Europe) sided with the invading Germans against the Russians, partly for historical associations, but also, as my mother put it, Balts were pretty certain that the Nazis would eventually lose the war, while the Russians would always be there. (Also, Estonia, at least, had a minuscule Jewish population in 1940, so that particular horror of Nazism was not as evident there [though the few thousand Jews who lived in Estonia were of course killed, some at the hands of ethnic Estonians in the employ of the Nazis, including one of my mother’s classmates]. In this regard, I can’t speak for Latvia or especially Lithuania, which had far more substantial Jewish populations.)

 

You’re right: history is complicated. However, when it comes to appeasing dictators, the answer is simple: Don’t do it!

If you have psychopathic neighbours, it is usually wiser to find a way to live with them than to provoke them. And let us not forget that Churchill ultimately effectively ceded your countries to Stalin as part of the post-war settlement. At some level, in the great game of power politics, morality has never been the deciding factor.

I also seem to recall that Kaja Kallas's husband continued trading with Russia long after the invasion of Ukraine had begun, despite the moral grandstanding from many European leaders. Principles often appear more flexible when money is involved.

As I have said before, if Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania wish to spend half their GDP on a new Maginot Line, or establish an Eastern European defence pact, that is entirely your prerogative. I wish you well. But I have become a British isolationist by instinct and by conviction, because I believe it is in Britain's national interest.

Nor am I persuaded by the tendency to ignore the grievances of Russian-speaking populations who, through the accidents of history and shifting borders, found themselves stranded on the wrong side of a frontier. Whether one agrees with their complaints or not, dismissing them entirely has hardly contributed to stability.In the UK at great expense we allow the Welsh their language as a right as I understand it in Estonia you discriminate against the unfortunates who were left on the wrong side of the fence and in doing so sow the seeds of future conflicts.

The question is not whether the Baltics matter. They plainly matter to Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians. The question is why they should matter more to me than the Congo, Sudan, Yemen, Myanmar or any number of other troubled places.

As a British citizen, my primary concern is the prosperity, security and cohesion of the United Kingdom. I wish the Baltic states well and support their right to defend themselves, but I do not automatically accept that every regional dispute or security concern on Europe's periphery becomes a British responsibility.

And besides all of this it hasn't passed me by that most of you arguing here are sat on your perches in far away Thailand sunning yourself in your dotages in a country that surrendered on day 1 of their invasion and in so doing save themselves from what would have inevitably led to their own destruction and if a European war breaks out won't be rushing to go 'home' - I live here in the UK and don't want any war and want to live out the rest of my life in comfort and peace.

Britain First !

15 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

If you have psychopathic neighbours, it is usually wiser to find a way to live with them than to provoke them. And let us not forget that Churchill ultimately effectively ceded your countries to Stalin as part of the post-war settlement. At some level, in the great game of power politics, morality has never been the deciding factor.

I also seem to recall that Kaja Kallas's husband continued trading with Russia long after the invasion of Ukraine had begun, despite the moral grandstanding from many European leaders. Principles often appear more flexible when money is involved.

As I have said before, if Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania wish to spend half their GDP on a new Maginot Line, or establish an Eastern European defence pact, that is entirely your prerogative. I wish you well. But I have become a British isolationist by instinct and by conviction, because I believe it is in Britain's national interest.

Nor am I persuaded by the tendency to ignore the grievances of Russian-speaking populations who, through the accidents of history and shifting borders, found themselves stranded on the wrong side of a frontier. Whether one agrees with their complaints or not, dismissing them entirely has hardly contributed to stability.In the UK at great expense we allow the Welsh their language as a right as I understand it in Estonia you discriminate against the unfortunates who were left on the wrong side of the fence and in doing so sow the seeds of future conflicts.

The question is not whether the Baltics matter. They plainly matter to Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians. The question is why they should matter more to me than the Congo, Sudan, Yemen, Myanmar or any number of other troubled places.

As a British citizen, my primary concern is the prosperity, security and cohesion of the United Kingdom. I wish the Baltic states well and support their right to defend themselves, but I do not automatically accept that every regional dispute or security concern on Europe's periphery becomes a British responsibility.

And besides all of this it hasn't passed me by that most of you arguing here are sat on your perches in far away Thailand sunning yourself in your dotages in a country that surrendered on day 1 of their invasion and in so doing save themselves from what would have inevitably led to their own destruction and if a European war breaks out won't be rushing to go 'home' - I live here in the UK and don't want any war and want to live out the rest of my life in comfort and peace.

Britain First !

We seem to have diametrically opposed worldviews. I don’t believe that isolationism is even possible, much less desirable, with so many interlocking systems across the globe, and global problems that pay no attention to borders. The Brits of course were a driving force of globalism, with centuries of colonialism across North America, Africa, and Asia (talk about illegal immigrants!) I don’t know where you stand on present-day immigration to the UK, but for an Anglo-Brit to complain about it is rather rich.

Yes, Kaja Kallas’s husband’s dealings with Russia have indeed been a scandal, much commented on in Estonia and elsewhere. As you wrote earlier, no nation emerges from history with entirely clean hands. I don’t think that it substantially diminishes her effectiveness as a spokesperson for Ukraine, and for standing up to Russia, but others may feel differently. As for the Russian-speaking populations in Estonia (and Latvia), that’s way too much to go into in a forum post.

I understand your wish to avoid war and live out your life in “comfort and peace.” However, history has shown that, when you appease an expansionist dictator such as Putin (who fancies himself as Peter the Great), well, war often has a way of finding you.

Perhaps you should revisit a verse by one of your great poets, John Donne, that I’m sure you read as a schoolboy -- which starts, “No man is an island.” (Another of your great artists, though more contemporary, PJ Harvey, read the poem aloud on stage on the night the results of the Brexit vote came in.)

On 6/12/2026 at 8:00 AM, beautifulthailand99 said:

Having worked, albeit very briefly, in Norway, I appreciate the Scandinavian reputation for candour and forthrightness. That said, I also remember lunches with the NPD as being remarkably sparse and featuring an extraordinary quantity of fish products. Skål!

As for Zelensky's laying of flowers at the memorial of the OUN leader, I see it as broadly analogous to a Norwegian politician paying tribute to Vidkun Quisling. Both men viewed their collaboration with Nazi Germany primarily through the lens of anti-Bolshevism, regardless of how history ultimately judged their choices.

Spoke like a true Trot. Once a Trot, always a Trot.

22 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

If you have psychopathic neighbours, it is usually wiser to find a way to live with them than to provoke them. And let us not forget that Churchill ultimately effectively ceded your countries to Stalin as part of the post-war settlement. At some level, in the great game of power politics, morality has never been the deciding factor.

I also seem to recall that Kaja Kallas's husband continued trading with Russia long after the invasion of Ukraine had begun, despite the moral grandstanding from many European leaders. Principles often appear more flexible when money is involved.

As I have said before, if Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania wish to spend half their GDP on a new Maginot Line, or establish an Eastern European defence pact, that is entirely your prerogative. I wish you well. But I have become a British isolationist by instinct and by conviction, because I believe it is in Britain's national interest.

Nor am I persuaded by the tendency to ignore the grievances of Russian-speaking populations who, through the accidents of history and shifting borders, found themselves stranded on the wrong side of a frontier. Whether one agrees with their complaints or not, dismissing them entirely has hardly contributed to stability.In the UK at great expense we allow the Welsh their language as a right as I understand it in Estonia you discriminate against the unfortunates who were left on the wrong side of the fence and in doing so sow the seeds of future conflicts.

The question is not whether the Baltics matter. They plainly matter to Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians. The question is why they should matter more to me than the Congo, Sudan, Yemen, Myanmar or any number of other troubled places.

As a British citizen, my primary concern is the prosperity, security and cohesion of the United Kingdom. I wish the Baltic states well and support their right to defend themselves, but I do not automatically accept that every regional dispute or security concern on Europe's periphery becomes a British responsibility.

And besides all of this it hasn't passed me by that most of you arguing here are sat on your perches in far away Thailand sunning yourself in your dotages in a country that surrendered on day 1 of their invasion and in so doing save themselves from what would have inevitably led to their own destruction and if a European war breaks out won't be rushing to go 'home' - I live here in the UK and don't want any war and want to live out the rest of my life in comfort and peace.

Britain First !

Holy <deleted>. You have become a Mosleyite.

But you live in Thailand, spouting off, defending Mother Russia at every opportunity. As a Trotskyist, you believed in Irish freedom, supported the 'RA. Now you support the Planter in Ireland.

What an extraordinary journey. A man who calls himself a Trotskyist ends his post with "Britain First!"

At some point, Leon Trotsky must have fallen off his chair.

For all the talk of internationalism, solidarity and the common interests of workers across borders, your argument boils down to a remarkably simple principle: "I don't care what happens to other countries as long as I can live out my retirement in comfort."

That isn't Trotskyism. It isn't even socialism. It is isolationist nationalism dressed up as realism.

You tell the Baltics that it is wiser to "live with psychopathic neighbours" than provoke them. They did. For fifty years. They were occupied, absorbed into the Soviet Union, subjected to deportations, censorship and political repression. Having survived that experience, they are perhaps entitled to be a little sceptical when told by comfortable observers thousands of miles away that they should simply relax and trust Moscow.

Your Churchill argument is even stranger. Churchill and Roosevelt abandoned half of Europe to Stalin, therefore what? Therefore Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania should accept being part of somebody else's sphere of influence today? That is not a justification. It is precisely the historical warning they are determined never to repeat.

And then we arrive at the Russian-speaker argument. Funny how concern for national minorities only seems to appear when it can be used to justify Russian geopolitical claims. The Kremlin has spent decades weaponising the language of "protecting Russian speakers" as a pretext for interference in neighbouring states. The Baltics know this because they have spent thirty years living next door to it.

But the most revealing line is the last one.

"Britain First."

There it is.

The mask slips.

Not "Workers of the world unite."

Not international solidarity.

Not anti-imperialism.

Not socialism.

"Britain First."

You have travelled so far to the political right that you have ended up echoing sentiments far closer to Oswald Mosley than Leon Trotsky. The irony is almost beautiful. MAGA extremists do the same, hence MAGA Commies enthusiastically endorsing effective nationalisation of American industry (the Federal government buying shares in tech companies like Intel).

The truth is that small nations have every reason to care about the ambitions of large powers because history teaches them the consequences of getting it wrong. Britain, meanwhile, did not become secure by pretending threats elsewhere were none of its business. Every generation that believed it could ignore events beyond its shores eventually discovered that geography is not a force field.

So spare us the lectures about realism. What you are advocating is not realism. It is complacency. It is the comforting belief that freedom, security and stability can be preserved indefinitely simply by looking the other way.

History has not been kind to people who believed that before, and it is unlikely to be kinder to those who believe it now.

6 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Holy <deleted>. You have become a Mosleyite.

But you live in Thailand, spouting off, defending Mother Russia at every opportunity. As a Trotskyist, you believed in Irish freedom, supported the 'RA. Now you support the Planter in Ireland.

What an extraordinary journey. A man who calls himself a Trotskyist ends his post with "Britain First!"

At some point, Leon Trotsky must have fallen off his chair.

For all the talk of internationalism, solidarity and the common interests of workers across borders, your argument boils down to a remarkably simple principle: "I don't care what happens to other countries as long as I can live out my retirement in comfort."

That isn't Trotskyism. It isn't even socialism. It is isolationist nationalism dressed up as realism.

You tell the Baltics that it is wiser to "live with psychopathic neighbours" than provoke them. They did. For fifty years. They were occupied, absorbed into the Soviet Union, subjected to deportations, censorship and political repression. Having survived that experience, they are perhaps entitled to be a little sceptical when told by comfortable observers thousands of miles away that they should simply relax and trust Moscow.

Your Churchill argument is even stranger. Churchill and Roosevelt abandoned half of Europe to Stalin, therefore what? Therefore Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania should accept being part of somebody else's sphere of influence today? That is not a justification. It is precisely the historical warning they are determined never to repeat.

And then we arrive at the Russian-speaker argument. Funny how concern for national minorities only seems to appear when it can be used to justify Russian geopolitical claims. The Kremlin has spent decades weaponising the language of "protecting Russian speakers" as a pretext for interference in neighbouring states. The Baltics know this because they have spent thirty years living next door to it.

But the most revealing line is the last one.

"Britain First."

There it is.

The mask slips.

Not "Workers of the world unite."

Not international solidarity.

Not anti-imperialism.

Not socialism.

"Britain First."

You have travelled so far to the political right that you have ended up echoing sentiments far closer to Oswald Mosley than Leon Trotsky. The irony is almost beautiful. MAGA extremists do the same, hence MAGA Commies enthusiastically endorsing effective nationalisation of American industry (the Federal government buying shares in tech companies like Intel).

The truth is that small nations have every reason to care about the ambitions of large powers because history teaches them the consequences of getting it wrong. Britain, meanwhile, did not become secure by pretending threats elsewhere were none of its business. Every generation that believed it could ignore events beyond its shores eventually discovered that geography is not a force field.

So spare us the lectures about realism. What you are advocating is not realism. It is complacency. It is the comforting belief that freedom, security and stability can be preserved indefinitely simply by looking the other way.

History has not been kind to people who believed that before, and it is unlikely to be kinder to those who believe it now.

You gave me a much-needed laugh after an afternoon of DIY on a hot summer's day in England.

And I'm using "Britain First" in the sense that charity begins at home, not in reference to the political party of the same name.

As for my views, they're probably more Groucho Marxist than Karl Marxist. To paraphrase Groucho: "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

I genuinely do wish the world were a better place. I help my neighbours and volunteer locally, so I'm not grandstanding from an armchair. But I suspect that many of those arguing here, had they been able to turn the clock back to 1914, would have been cheering on their respective sides and eloquently defending noble principles, while ultimately supporting yet another round of industrial-scale slaughter in which almost everybody loses.

So my default position is simple: no war is better than any war. If you have the misfortune to live in a place where conflict is more likely, then either tread carefully or move if you can.

Which, for many of you in Thailand, is precisely what you've done. You've voted with your feet.

And you may have noticed that I'm not the most serious person in the room. I generally believe a good laugh is worth more than a good argument. And if you don't agree, I'll punch you in the face.

(That's a joke, before anyone alerts the authorities.)

PS: I fully understand why Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians fear Russia. If I were Estonian, I might well feel much the same. The question is not whether their concerns are legitimate; the question is why those concerns should automatically become a British responsibility, and why they should matter more to me than, say, Myanmar.

After all, Myanmar is your immediate neighbour. Its military regime makes modern Russia look positively benign by comparison in some respects, yet it is largely countries in the region that quietly carry the burden of dealing with the consequences while Europeans pontificate about international morality from a safe distance on the internet.

I do not begrudge the Baltic states their fears, nor their right to prepare for the worst. I simply reject the assumption that every security concern on Russia's borders must automatically become a vital British interest.

England First !

12 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

PS: I fully understand why Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians fear Russia. If I were Estonian, I might well feel much the same. The question is not whether their concerns are legitimate; the question is why those concerns should automatically become a British responsibility, and why they should matter more to me than, say, Myanmar.

After all, Myanmar is your immediate neighbour. Its military regime makes modern Russia look positively benign by comparison in some respects, yet it is largely countries in the region that quietly carry the burden of dealing with the consequences while Europeans pontificate about international morality from a safe distance on the internet.

I do not begrudge the Baltic states their fears, nor their right to prepare for the worst. I simply reject the assumption that every security concern on Russia's borders must automatically become a vital British interest.

I’m not sure if “fear” is quite the right word, as the fear is actionable. As you recall, in the 1990s, during a window when Russian influence was in abeyance, nearly every country in the former Soviet bloc rushed to join Western institutions -- namely, the EU and NATO -- as they saw this as the best guarantee against possible future Russian aggression. And so far, it’s paid off. Russia has divided Moldova and attacked Georgia and Ukraine, none of which are in NATO. There’s no way, in current circumstances, that Russia would attack Estonia or Poland. Because they are in NATO. If Russia were to attack Estonia or Poland tomorrow, NATO would respond in force.

(Including, I’m afraid, your Britain, which is a full member of NATO. I’m puzzled by your bringing up Burma, that Brits should be no more concerned about Estonia than they are about Burma. Britain has a treaty obligation toward Estonia that it does not have toward Burma. To use your phrasing, the security concerns of the Baltic states are automatically very much a British responsibility, by virtue of the NATO treaty. Whether you like it or not.)

However, if for some reason Western support for Ukraine were to crumble and Russia were then able to subdue that unfortunate country, Putin would likely conclude that NATO is a paper tiger and might test the waters, say, by storming the Suwałki Gap, which separates Belarus from Kaliningrad (and forms the border between Poland and Lithuania); this scenario is widely discussed. Then, to put it lightly, we would all be in a pickle.

So the easiest solution is to provide vigorous support to Ukraine, not only to reinforce that country’s independence but to send a firm signal to Putin. The strategy is called “containment,” which often works. Your proposed strategy, “appeasement,” again, has never worked.

And your position that “no war is better than any war” is also maybe a little short-sighted. Sure, most wars are useless, and uselessly destructive (you mention World War I). But was fighting, say, World War II useless? As a Brit, would you have favored making a deal with Hitler, giving the Nazis free reign in continental Europe while maintaining the British Empire elsewhere? Just so you can sit at home and enjoy your crumpets, or whatever? Unfortunate as it may sound, some wars need fighting.

It’s my fondest wish that Russia evolve into a “normal” country and fully integrate with the rest of Europe and with other global institutions. In the 1990s, there was a chance of that happening, so there will be other chances. I’ve traveled in Russia; it’s a wonderful country with truly great people. The best way to make this happen is to stand up to the gangsters who currently run Russia.

On 6/11/2026 at 7:20 PM, TedG said:

So in your view, the West should have let Russia roll over Ukraine.

I can't believe we have people in the West actually thinking that is okay. I would get sick to my stomach if we let them do that, with genocide as the result.

19 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Holy <deleted>. You have become a Mosleyite.

But you live in Thailand, spouting off, defending Mother Russia at every opportunity. As a Trotskyist, you believed in Irish freedom, supported the 'RA. Now you support the Planter in Ireland.

What an extraordinary journey. A man who calls himself a Trotskyist ends his post with "Britain First!"

At some point, Leon Trotsky must have fallen off his chair.

For all the talk of internationalism, solidarity and the common interests of workers across borders, your argument boils down to a remarkably simple principle: "I don't care what happens to other countries as long as I can live out my retirement in comfort."

That isn't Trotskyism. It isn't even socialism. It is isolationist nationalism dressed up as realism.

You tell the Baltics that it is wiser to "live with psychopathic neighbours" than provoke them. They did. For fifty years. They were occupied, absorbed into the Soviet Union, subjected to deportations, censorship and political repression. Having survived that experience, they are perhaps entitled to be a little sceptical when told by comfortable observers thousands of miles away that they should simply relax and trust Moscow.

Your Churchill argument is even stranger. Churchill and Roosevelt abandoned half of Europe to Stalin, therefore what? Therefore Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania should accept being part of somebody else's sphere of influence today? That is not a justification. It is precisely the historical warning they are determined never to repeat.

And then we arrive at the Russian-speaker argument. Funny how concern for national minorities only seems to appear when it can be used to justify Russian geopolitical claims. The Kremlin has spent decades weaponising the language of "protecting Russian speakers" as a pretext for interference in neighbouring states. The Baltics know this because they have spent thirty years living next door to it.

But the most revealing line is the last one.

"Britain First."

There it is.

The mask slips.

Not "Workers of the world unite."

Not international solidarity.

Not anti-imperialism.

Not socialism.

"Britain First."

You have travelled so far to the political right that you have ended up echoing sentiments far closer to Oswald Mosley than Leon Trotsky. The irony is almost beautiful. MAGA extremists do the same, hence MAGA Commies enthusiastically endorsing effective nationalisation of American industry (the Federal government buying shares in tech companies like Intel).

The truth is that small nations have every reason to care about the ambitions of large powers because history teaches them the consequences of getting it wrong. Britain, meanwhile, did not become secure by pretending threats elsewhere were none of its business. Every generation that believed it could ignore events beyond its shores eventually discovered that geography is not a force field.

So spare us the lectures about realism. What you are advocating is not realism. It is complacency. It is the comforting belief that freedom, security and stability can be preserved indefinitely simply by looking the other way.

History has not been kind to people who believed that before, and it is unlikely to be kinder to those who believe it now.

Best comment I've read in a long, long while. Respect, and of course spot on, Sir.

55 minutes ago, Cory1848 said:

I’m not sure if “fear” is quite the right word, as the fear is actionable. As you recall, in the 1990s, during a window when Russian influence was in abeyance, nearly every country in the former Soviet bloc rushed to join Western institutions -- namely, the EU and NATO -- as they saw this as the best guarantee against possible future Russian aggression. And so far, it’s paid off. Russia has divided Moldova and attacked Georgia and Ukraine, none of which are in NATO. There’s no way, in current circumstances, that Russia would attack Estonia or Poland. Because they are in NATO. If Russia were to attack Estonia or Poland tomorrow, NATO would respond in force.

 

(Including, I’m afraid, your Britain, which is a full member of NATO. I’m puzzled by your bringing up Burma, that Brits should be no more concerned about Estonia than they are about Burma. Britain has a treaty obligation toward Estonia that it does not have toward Burma. To use your phrasing, the security concerns of the Baltic states are automatically very much a British responsibility, by virtue of the NATO treaty. Whether you like it or not.)

 

However, if for some reason Western support for Ukraine were to crumble and Russia were then able to subdue that unfortunate country, Putin would likely conclude that NATO is a paper tiger and might test the waters, say, by storming the Suwałki Gap, which separates Belarus from Kaliningrad (and forms the border between Poland and Lithuania); this scenario is widely discussed. Then, to put it lightly, we would all be in a pickle.

 

So the easiest solution is to provide vigorous support to Ukraine, not only to reinforce that country’s independence but to send a firm signal to Putin. The strategy is called “containment,” which often works. Your proposed strategy, “appeasement,” again, has never worked.

 

And your position that “no war is better than any war” is also maybe a little short-sighted. Sure, most wars are useless, and uselessly destructive (you mention World War I). But was fighting, say, World War II useless? As a Brit, would you have favored making a deal with Hitler, giving the Nazis free reign in continental Europe while maintaining the British Empire elsewhere? Just so you can sit at home and enjoy your crumpets, or whatever? Unfortunate as it may sound, some wars need fighting.

 

It’s my fondest wish that Russia evolve into a “normal” country and fully integrate with the rest of Europe and with other global institutions. In the 1990s, there was a chance of that happening, so there will be other chances. I’ve traveled in Russia; it’s a wonderful country with truly great people. The best way to make this happen is to stand up to the gangsters who currently run Russia.

All well and good, and your position will most likely prevail. That said, my salient point and the reason I brought up the Empire is that I would rather Britain become an island Switzerland: a fortress and redoubt by virtue of our geography, our armed forces, and our nuclear deterrent, while focusing on building a better society here at home in this green and pleasant land.

Why? Mostly because I live here, as do my family and friends. Secondly, because I believe the world is going to become a much more dangerous place as Western economies struggle to maintain their privileged positions and as climate change places increasing pressure on nations and resources.

Europe has always been problematic and has been the cause of the deaths of tens of millions of people over the centuries. I genuinely loved the European Union as a stabilising force and, at times, a shining light on the hill. However, my less-enlightened compatriots democratically chose to leave it, and so, conscious of where we now stand, I believe it is time to draw in our horns and concentrate on the homeland in all its diversity.

Russia, lest we forget, remains armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, while China stands behind it and continues its rise. If we can use our armed forces primarily for national defence and resilience supported by a volunteer reserve that can assist during floods and other national emergencies then I would strongly support and encourage that approach.

It is often the political and strategic elites who advocate military adventures abroad, defence pacts, and power projection. Ordinary people tend to want peace, prosperity, security, and a decent future for their families. In the United Kingdom, we have a good chance of achieving those things if we accept that we cannot solve the world's problems and stop trying to do so before addressing our own.

As my dad was wont to say and taught me at his knee from his experiences in the Second World War "don't poke the bear; the Soviets saved our arses."

Before the war he worked at the Woolwich Arsenal and rushed to volunteer when war broke out. He was eventually accepted in late 1940 when restrictions on recruits wearing glasses were relaxed. He would have thought supporting Ukraine in the way we have been was madness, and he would also have thought Putin's Russia were a bunch of right bastards—and he would have been right on both counts.

I carry on his inheritance in both temperament and intellect and am currently, with the help of ChatGPT, transcribing his extensive wartime diaries from his service as a signalman. My childhood was steeped in the Second World War. Tens of thousands of hours were spent talking and debating with my father, who owned hundreds of books on the subject. The war dominated his psyche, and in many ways it has come to dominate mine as well.

On the weekend before his death, at Christmas 1996, we talked at length about our shared Christian socialism and came to the conclusion that the Sermon on the Mount was the closest thing to a perfect template for human behaviour ever devised. Of course, he was right.

We will build Jerusalem or die in the attempt.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

— Matthew 7:24–25

Ameen (sic)

1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Russia, lest we forget, remains armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, while China stands behind it and continues its rise.

Nonsense. The last thing China wants, is a nuclear conflict. China won't let Russia use nuclear weapons. They are holding Russia back on this.

So, that "threat" is fictional, and has no bearing. Only empty words from a desperate country and dictator. Words which aren't being taken serious anymore, because he has used them too many times.

Remember, NATO is not a threat to Russia. There are no intentions or plans of invading their country, at any point.

And Kremlin knows this.

And, the minute they would, against all common sense, use them, Russia know that their country will be turned into dust as well.

We can say much about Putin, but he is not a complete idiot.

1 hour ago, thaibreaker said:

Nonsense. The last thing China wants, is a nuclear conflict. China won't let Russia use nuclear weapons. They are holding Russia back on this.

So, that "threat" is fictional, and has no bearing. Only empty words from a desperate country and dictator. Words which aren't being taken serious anymore, because he has used them too many times.

Remember, NATO is not a threat to Russia. There are no intentions or plans of invading their country, at any point.

And Kremlin knows this.

And, the minute they would, against all common sense, use them, Russia know that their country will be turned into dust as well.

We can say much about Putin, but he is not a complete idiot.

I'm afraid, sir, it's you against my dad no prizes for guessing who wins that contest.

He was aghast when the Berlin Wall came down. His greatest fear was never Russia flexing its muscles at its borders; it was a reunited Germany. That was the lesson his generation drew from the twentieth century.

As for China, I wasn't conflating its rise with its possession of nuclear weapons. My point was that China stands behind Russia as an ally without limits. Resources plus manufacturing capacity is a formidable combination and, barring some unforeseen upheaval, points towards a Chinese century. The sooner people accept that reality and pivot towards making the best of the hand they have been dealt, rather than driving themselves into the ground where principles collide with immovable realities, the better it will be for everyone.

The United States and Israel may well have been reminded of that lesson by Iran. Whether one agrees with Tehran or not is beside the point. The world has changed, power is becoming more diffuse, and outcomes are increasingly difficult to dictate by force alone.

Let's not expand the conflict any further.

3 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

All well and good, and your position will most likely prevail. That said, my salient point and the reason I brought up the Empire is that I would rather Britain become an island Switzerland: a fortress and redoubt by virtue of our geography, our armed forces, and our nuclear deterrent, while focusing on building a better society here at home in this green and pleasant land.

Why? Mostly because I live here, as do my family and friends. Secondly, because I believe the world is going to become a much more dangerous place as Western economies struggle to maintain their privileged positions and as climate change places increasing pressure on nations and resources.

Europe has always been problematic and has been the cause of the deaths of tens of millions of people over the centuries. I genuinely loved the European Union as a stabilising force and, at times, a shining light on the hill. However, my less-enlightened compatriots democratically chose to leave it, and so, conscious of where we now stand, I believe it is time to draw in our horns and concentrate on the homeland in all its diversity.

Russia, lest we forget, remains armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, while China stands behind it and continues its rise. If we can use our armed forces primarily for national defence and resilience supported by a volunteer reserve that can assist during floods and other national emergencies then I would strongly support and encourage that approach.

It is often the political and strategic elites who advocate military adventures abroad, defence pacts, and power projection. Ordinary people tend to want peace, prosperity, security, and a decent future for their families. In the United Kingdom, we have a good chance of achieving those things if we accept that we cannot solve the world's problems and stop trying to do so before addressing our own.

As my dad was wont to say and taught me at his knee from his experiences in the Second World War "don't poke the bear; the Soviets saved our arses."

Before the war he worked at the Woolwich Arsenal and rushed to volunteer when war broke out. He was eventually accepted in late 1940 when restrictions on recruits wearing glasses were relaxed. He would have thought supporting Ukraine in the way we have been was madness, and he would also have thought Putin's Russia were a bunch of right bastards—and he would have been right on both counts.

I carry on his inheritance in both temperament and intellect and am currently, with the help of ChatGPT, transcribing his extensive wartime diaries from his service as a signalman. My childhood was steeped in the Second World War. Tens of thousands of hours were spent talking and debating with my father, who owned hundreds of books on the subject. The war dominated his psyche, and in many ways it has come to dominate mine as well.

On the weekend before his death, at Christmas 1996, we talked at length about our shared Christian socialism and came to the conclusion that the Sermon on the Mount was the closest thing to a perfect template for human behaviour ever devised. Of course, he was right.

We will build Jerusalem or die in the attempt.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

— Matthew 7:24–25

Ameen (sic)

Meh. We've all got war stories. My grandad was FEPOW. Dad was post-war British Army. In WW3, BAOR was expected to survive about 3 weeks, but in those 3 weeks, they were expected to deliver a vital task.

At the Southend United Supporters Club, there was an old fella, Gregory. He was Ukrainian, made sure everyone knew (this was early 80s, he's long dead). He utterly utterly hated the Russians, and what they did to his country. I can only speculate how he ended up in Southend of Sea, supping a pint of lager, with a packet of crisps, watching Sarfend get knocked out of the cup on the box, again.

All your grandiose words about loving Britain; hypocrisy. You supported the Soviet Union in the late 70s, when they sent their goons to murder legimately elected ministers in Kabul, because they weren't sufficiently communist.

Your old man was wrong. The Soviets did not save our Arses, They were prepared to sell us down the river in a deal with Hitler. They provided Hitler with the petrol, the diesel, the supplies, to power his Blitzkrieg through France. Look up the Soviet-Germany Commercial Agreement. Stalin sent 150,000 tonnes of fuel a month to Germany in 1940, about 20% of their needs. Without your beloved Russia, Hitler wouldn't have kicked off. The Russians were fools, both in their dealings with Germany, and in the inhumane way they used their troops. Their massive casualties, which you interpret, through the Communist Lens, as sacrifice was actually a measure of their incompetence and inhumanity. We saved their arses. Our principled resilience saved them, is spite of their incompetent leadership. In 1940, you would have sued for peace with Germany citing the First World War and the Franco-Prussian War as reasons to not take on Germany, and then trying to remind us all about how much the Prussians used to be our friends. You would have looked to Germany's vastly larger European army, and said we could never have taken them on, You will have mourned the rounding up and likely deaths of Jewish people, and others, in Europe, but say "we can't save them all. Its not our battle".

If anyone "saved our arses", and Russia's, it was America. Lend Lease saved Russia. They, the current leadership, will never say thankyou. A large part of Lend Lease for Russia was also British supplies, including food, diverted to help Russia. But they never say thankyou.

If you believe the Communist line (and Putin is a Communist), you believe the nonsense that we are poking the so called Bear. Complete <deleted>. Putin can't accept Russia as a normal country that is supposed to have normal relations with the rest of the world. He commands an economy with about 150 million of so people, but worth about the same as Spain (was about the same size as Italy), thanks to large scale theft by himself and his cronies. You want us to give in to a thief armed with a screwdriver.

"Europe"is a flamin' Continent. Its not the "cause" of millions of deaths, any more than Asia is the cause of the Hordes. European nations might have fought, but you suffer from a geographic confusion. Russia was the biggest cause of deaths, mostly their own, in terms of numbers.

Britain an island. You can paddle from France in a couple of hours. We are connected via a tunnel. Its hardly impenetrable, unless you believe the nonsense about the Armada.

Switzerland wasn't invaded because Germany feared them. They weren't invaded because they were willing to do business and the gangsters in Germany needed a route to get their loot out of Germany. In the Swiss model, you provide arms to both sides in a conflict, you hide stolen money, and proclaim innocence.

56 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I'm afraid, sir, it's you against my dad no prizes for guessing who wins that contest.

He was aghast when the Berlin Wall came down. His greatest fear was never Russia flexing its muscles at its borders; it was a reunited Germany. That was the lesson his generation drew from the twentieth century.

As for China, I wasn't conflating its rise with its possession of nuclear weapons. My point was that China stands behind Russia as an ally without limits. Resources plus manufacturing capacity is a formidable combination and, barring some unforeseen upheaval, points towards a Chinese century. The sooner people accept that reality and pivot towards making the best of the hand they have been dealt, rather than driving themselves into the ground where principles collide with immovable realities, the better it will be for everyone.

The United States and Israel may well have been reminded of that lesson by Iran. Whether one agrees with Tehran or not is beside the point. The world has changed, power is becoming more diffuse, and outcomes are increasingly difficult to dictate by force alone.

Let's not expand the conflict any further.

Me against your dad, who lived the ww2?

Are you serious? Are we 12 years old?

What your dad has to do with Russia today, is seriously way out of any context or importance to today's situation.

If I'm going that route myself, my dad was a fighter pilot for NATO for decades, flew many NATO missions, and he had a complete different view, so let's not go there.

And no, China has no interest of starting a conflict with NATO. They have everything to lose doing that, they are depending on trade with the West. That's why they have never officially stood behind Russia. Putin is following Xi's wishes in this war, and will never go the nuclear route.

Just watched a video where Ukrainians are using Hydrogen balloons with drones

attached so they can float the drones further into Russia ,then letting them go to

their targets , Russia is a huge country so the further they can reach targets the

better , it also has a Psychological effect on the Russian people who thought they

were to far from the war to worry,

regards Worgeordie

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

Meh. We've all got war stories. My grandad was FEPOW. Dad was post-war British Army. In WW3, BAOR was expected to survive about 3 weeks, but in those 3 weeks, they were expected to deliver a vital task.

At the Southend United Supporters Club, there was an old fella, Gregory. He was Ukrainian, made sure everyone knew (this was early 80s, he's long dead). He utterly utterly hated the Russians, and what they did to his country. I can only speculate how he ended up in Southend of Sea, supping a pint of lager, with a packet of crisps, watching Sarfend get knocked out of the cup on the box, again.

All your grandiose words about loving Britain; hypocrisy. You supported the Soviet Union in the late 70s, when they sent their goons to murder legimately elected ministers in Kabul, because they weren't sufficiently communist.

Your old man was wrong. The Soviets did not save our Arses, They were prepared to sell us down the river in a deal with Hitler. They provided Hitler with the petrol, the diesel, the supplies, to power his Blitzkrieg through France. Look up the Soviet-Germany Commercial Agreement. Stalin sent 150,000 tonnes of fuel a month to Germany in 1940, about 20% of their needs. Without your beloved Russia, Hitler wouldn't have kicked off. The Russians were fools, both in their dealings with Germany, and in the inhumane way they used their troops. Their massive casualties, which you interpret, through the Communist Lens, as sacrifice was actually a measure of their incompetence and inhumanity. We saved their arses. Our principled resilience saved them, is spite of their incompetent leadership. In 1940, you would have sued for peace with Germany citing the First World War and the Franco-Prussian War as reasons to not take on Germany, and then trying to remind us all about how much the Prussians used to be our friends. You would have looked to Germany's vastly larger European army, and said we could never have taken them on, You will have mourned the rounding up and likely deaths of Jewish people, and others, in Europe, but say "we can't save them all. Its not our battle".

If anyone "saved our arses", and Russia's, it was America. Lend Lease saved Russia. They, the current leadership, will never say thankyou. A large part of Lend Lease for Russia was also British supplies, including food, diverted to help Russia. But they never say thankyou.

If you believe the Communist line (and Putin is a Communist), you believe the nonsense that we are poking the so called Bear. Complete <deleted>. Putin can't accept Russia as a normal country that is supposed to have normal relations with the rest of the world. He commands an economy with about 150 million of so people, but worth about the same as Spain (was about the same size as Italy), thanks to large scale theft by himself and his cronies. You want us to give in to a thief armed with a screwdriver.

"Europe"is a flamin' Continent. Its not the "cause" of millions of deaths, any more than Asia is the cause of the Hordes. European nations might have fought, but you suffer from a geographic confusion. Russia was the biggest cause of deaths, mostly their own, in terms of numbers.

Britain an island. You can paddle from France in a couple of hours. We are connected via a tunnel. Its hardly impenetrable, unless you believe the nonsense about the Armada.

Switzerland wasn't invaded because Germany feared them. They weren't invaded because they were willing to do business and the gangsters in Germany needed a route to get their loot out of Germany. In the Swiss model, you provide arms to both sides in a conflict, you hide stolen money, and proclaim innocence.

Fair enough, but I think you've also rather proved my point.

I wasn't arguing Stalin was a saint, or that the Soviet Union was some sort of workers' paradise. It plainly wasn't. The Nazi-Soviet Pact happened. Soviet atrocities happened. The occupation of Eastern Europe happened. None of that is in dispute.

My dad's point, which I happen to share, was much simpler. By 1945 the Red Army had destroyed the bulk of the Wehrmacht. Had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union I very much doubt Britain survives the war as an independent great power in the form we recognise today. That doesn't make Stalin a good bloke. It makes him a deeply unpleasant ally who happened to be fighting the same enemy.

As for Ukraine, reasonable people can disagree. My concern has never been whether Putin is a villain. He is. A right bastard in fact. My concern is whether the West has a clear idea of what victory actually looks like, what it costs, and how long we are prepared to keep paying for it. They are different questions.

On Germany, I was relating my dad's views, not necissarily prescribing them for 2026. He belonged to a generation shaped by two world wars. A reunited Germany worried him far more than a weakened Russia ever did. History has probably proved him wrong on that point, but I understand perfectly well why he thought it.

And on Switzerland, you're taking the analogy a bit too literally. I don't mean hiding Nazi gold in mountain vaults and flogging ammunition to all comers. I mean a country that places the security, prosperity and resilience of its own people ahead of grand projects abroad and endless foreign entanglements.

As for loving Britain being hypocrisy, I would argue the exact opposite. It is precisely because I love Britain that I would rather see British governments spend more time fixing Britain and less time trying to fix everybody else. We can't even build a high speed railway , a serviceable tank or an aircraft carrier that works.

As for my old man being wrong, well I'm afraid sir it's you against him and there are no prizes for guessing who wins that contest in my head.

One final point. You say America saved everybody's arses. There is a lot of truth in that. Equally there is a tendency in the English-speaking world to view the war through a Hollywood lens. The Americans provided immense industrial muscle. The British held out when they stood alone. The Soviets bled on a scale that is almost impossible to comprehend. All three things can be true at the same time. Auschwitz lest we forget was liberated by Ivan but they were denied a place at the anniversary of their liberation whilst Ukraine raises monuments to those who actively and viscously partook. These aren't Kremlin talking point merely inconvenient truiths.

Perhaps that is my real objection to all of this. The world is changing. China is rising and Russia is not going away and will always bee a miserable bastard with a huge appetite and ability to take pain . The West is not as dominant as it once was. At some point principle has to meet reality and reality tends to win.When you lose 20 million, like the Jews in Israel you get the right to be paranoid to the point of psychopathy.

Anyway, we are probably not going to agree on this and that's fine. I know it's fiendishly hot in Thailand and you have far more time on your hands than I have - so enough for now !