Forum Topic

Sorry to disappoint you Steven but I have very strong views on what when it comes to foreign policy and unlike some they do not represent Russia, USA or Israel for that matter (may have to add additional countries soon).I'm also against foreign countries interfering with our democracy be it again Russia, USA or Israel.I do however recognise that we the UK do interfere in other countries including democracies. We also apply double standards. Fine if people want to pendle that but I will challenge it. I will normally call out our own faults too which is where we can have the most impact.We could discuss history and no doubt more information will come out over time. The simple facts are lines drawn in time are pointless to resolving conflicts once war starts be it Ukraine, Gaza, Northern Ireland or anywhere else.I said quite a while ago and repeated that like Gaza the longer the conflict goes on the more likely the settlement will be worse than what's already been on the table.The Minsk Agreements and the Turkish agreement were far better than anything likely to be on the table now.War is war and there are no good and bad once it starts just different degrees of evil. That is the nature of war.It is also like fire and hard to stop and easy to spread once started and requires feeding with lives.The facts remain and it is a fact, Ukraine is running out of troops to send to the front line.There are also legality issues after elections were cancelled around any deal that might complicate or delay any agreement.Elections will need to be carried out to return Ukraine to a democracy before any certainty about what the people want.As for other countries, be it US, EU or UK interests they are more to do with mineral rights than any concern about Ukrainians.The difference is that US politicians will openly say so.I think we can do an entirely new thread on Boris Johnson.

Ed Robinson ● 81d

Ed, your view on the conflict in Ukraine seems to be the following:In 2014 the democratically elected president, Victor Yanukovych, was overthrown in an American backed coup whose aim was to weaken Russia by absorbing Ukraine into NATO. As a result the Russians invaded Crimea in order to secure their naval base at Sevastopol. Subsequently the Ukrainians continued to discriminate against Russian speaking citizens in the Donbas region, prompting Russia to mount a full scale invasion. Zelensky, who is simply a pawn of the Americans, has closed the borders and has sent tens of thousands of his countrymen to their deaths in a futile war against Russia.Am I right in thinking this is more or less your view? It is certainly what Putin would say. But is any of it true?1) Yanukovych was not overthrown. He fled the country amid popular unrest and was subsequently removed from office by the Ukrainian Parliament.2) The issue which caused the unrest was not about joining NATO - Germany had vetoed extending NATO membership to NATO several years earlier - it was about Yanukovych’ sudden decision under pressure from the Russians to withdraw from signing an association agreement with the EU. As Zelensky has said recently, the Americans have always been lukewarm about bringing Ukraine into NATO.3) Far from wishing to antagonise Russia, Zelensky was elected in 2019 on a manifesto advocating peace with Russia. His efforts were unfortunately forestalled by Russia’s invasion in 2022.4) Far from preparing its ‘proxy’ for war, the Americans left Ukraine unprepared  to repel a Russian invasion. It was only thanks to Boris Johnson, who started sending arms to Ukraine a year earlier, that Ukraine was able to resist the original push by the Russians. Subsequently the Americans sent d3f3nsive weapons to the Ukrainians but have never given Ukraine weapons to attack Russia itself.5) The thesis that it is all the fault of NATO forgets that Putin has made no secret of his view that Ukraine has no right to exist as a country independent of Russia.6) The support given to Ukraine by Britain and the EU stems from fear over the security of Europe’s eastern border, which is why Sweden and Finland have decided to join NATO.

Steven Rose ● 81d

A very weird and contradictory answer.Afghanistan for example - do they not have a right to sovereignty?You seem to indicate not.Who determines which countries do and do not - you?Are the Taliban not the same brave freedom fighters as Thatcher describe them?The Taliban are the same rufless and traditional and often barbaric Taliban and the only thing that appears to be different is which invaders they were fighting.The withdrawal was conducted under Biden and they had plenty of time. I'm so sorry that the person you mention didn't get to see action. How unlucky are they the war only lasted twenty years after all.There is still the question of how the Taliban managed to take the country over.Was it the machine gunning of villages and other atrocities that led to its ranks being swelled by relatives of the survivors?"Your question is irrelevant for me"Why, you can drive I assume. Do you think they are just sending fit young men to the front?Or do you mean you could buy your way out? The price of which in Ukraine has recently gone up - (around £6,000 from memory).It seems the middle classes can usually escape wars through University as many Presidents have done."How about you, Ed, live under a dictator or fight against them?"I certainly would not vote for them. There are elements of dictatorship under the UK's current and previous governments -  as I frequently mention. Locking up journalists and torturing them for telling the truth. Kidnapping and trafficking men, women & children under Blair.Persecuting ex soldiers for having an opinion that some Labour councillor didn't like.Would I fight in the Ukraine?No it's a corrupt regime and it's a proxy war perpetuated by proxies. If it had to be one of mine I would go.Very good offers have been on the table and rejected.The government has cancelled elections and it doesn't look good for opposition leaders and journalists either.Then there is freedom of religion and language.It is very strange that the principles some hold for countries abroad do not stand within the UK.Conflicts are rarely against good and bad - more common just different degrees of bad.With sanctions Europe is sending arms to Ukraine but still buying Russian energy -  I do not mean Hungry that has been upfront and got a veto from the sanctions.Like all wars it's a dirty war and perhaps Vance is right when he says too many people pushing war with no skin in the game.

Ed Robinson ● 82d

The problem with drawing a line in time of your choosing and saying the other side started it, is it doesn't really help resolve any war.There are only two sides to war at the beginning and after it finishes - that is the living and the dead.The number of dead are huge - we can dispute them but the truth will only come out after the conflict.As for war crimes there are plenty of allegations on both sides and others too!Putting aside the human losses, this war has been a disaster for the West.It's push Russia that was Western facing more East and led to Russia having closer ties with China. Something the West spent decades to prevent.It has weaponized the dollar - leading to it's weakening as other countries no longer trusting it.The same goes for investment in Europe.It's had huge environmental impact and has through ill thought out sanctions the deindustrialization of Germany and increased energy costs. Whilst at the same time second hand energy has been imported from India.Even with the USA picking up a lot of relocated European companies (some went to China) and selling energy to Europe it has done the USA great harm.Unfortunately deals be it for Ukraine or Gaza will not be as good as what was previously on the table.Last time I checked the UK was one of the largest holders of US debt, I think Japan being the first."They can increase spending on defence"As several have mentioned, Europe with some exceptions hasn't invested in defense, it would have been wise several years ago to do so. Europe is also heavily dependent upon US satellites etc.European economies are also not in the best state and still subjected to high energy costs that make them less competitive.Will no one ask what preparation did the UK & Europe take running up to this conflict? Militarily or economically?It seems absolutely none, no change there then!

Ed Robinson ● 84d

Hello Alexander,I have been trying to find out how the contributions to NATO are calculated.  Have not been successful thus far but I should imagine they must be based on GDP of each country?  I just looked US's GDP and, in 2003, it was USD27.36 trillion.  I looked UK's GDP (have not yet looked for other countries) and in 2023 it was USD3.34 trillion.  I would have thought, but will confirm, that European countries' GDP are closer to the UK than the USA. Still, the US contribution amounts to 3.4% of its GDP.  Why was NATO created? By 1949, Stalin had managed to install communist governments in most Eastern European countries to act as a ‘buffer zone’ to protect the USSR from attack. There was a fear that the USSR could do the same to countries in Western Europe. As part of NATO, smaller countries would be less vulnerable to Soviet influence or attack.The Berlin Blockade of 1948 convinced the West that they needed a defensive organisation, in the event of a Soviet attack on a capitalist country.China had become communist in 1949 followed by North Korea in 1950. This significantly increased the proportion of the world which was ‘red’. The USA was concerned that communism would now spread to other countries.The formation of NATO meant that the USA could place weapons in member states. This would allow more effective defence in the event of a Soviet attack.So, if Trump sees Putin as a friend, I suppose that there is no need, in Trump's eyes, to maintain this alliance.  I think Trump sees China as a greater threat and will concentrate on the Pacific and forget Europe.

Ivonne Holliday ● 84d