USSR invades Ukraine. (3 Viewers)

Grendel

Well-Known Member
If you truly believe that a land war in Europe has no geopolitical ramifications for the UK or its allies, then it would obviously be foolish to spend much of anything on Ukraine. But back in the real world…

Should we spend £3 billion or not?
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
Trump still giving Putin what he wants.

From today's 'ceasefire deal':


1. In accordance with the agreement between the presidents of Russia and the United States, the Russian and American sides agreed to ensure the implementation of the Black Sea initiative", including ensuring the safety of navigation in the Black Sea, non-use of force and non-use of commercial vessels in military In order to organize appropriate controls through the inspection of such vessels.

2. USA will help restore access to Russian exports agricultural products and fertilizers to the world market, reducing the cost of insurance of maritime transportation, as well as expanding access to ports and payment systems for such Transaction.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall enter into force after:

Lifting of sanctions restrictions from the Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in the provision of international food trade transactions (including fishery products) and fertilizers, their connection to SWIFT, the opening of necessary correspondent accounts;
Removal of restrictions on trade finance operations;

Lifting sanctions restrictions on food producers and exporters (including fish products) and fertilizers, as well as the removal of restrictions on the work of insurance companies with cargo of food (including fish products) and fertilizers;
Lifting restrictions on servicing ships in ports and sanctions on ships under the Russian flag, involved in the trade of food (including fish products) and fertilizers;

Lifting restrictions on the supply of agricultural machinery to the Russian Federation, as well as other goods involved in the production of food (including fish products) and fertilizers.
 

Captain Dart

Well-Known Member
I don’t think I’ve read anything as stupid as this but let’s go with it.

Donald Trump invades Canada and declares it as a 51st state. He bombs many cities in Canada and imprisons any opposition.

What would you as PM of the Uk do in that situation?
Wake up from his bad night, change the sweaty sheets and vow never to drink that much again.🤭
 

mmttww

Well-Known Member
Should we spend £3 billion or not?

Cheaper than actually standing up to tyrants ourselves like we might have done in the past so Yeah, we probably should. You talk about this a lot for someone who says they don't care about it, btw.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Cheaper than actually standing up to tyrants ourselves like we might have done in the past so Yeah, we probably should. You talk about this a lot for someone who says they don't care about it, btw.

Which assumes that £3bn would move the dial in swinging the war effort Ukraine’s way. It won’t unfortunately.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
if you pretend our contribution(s) wasn't always going to be part of a larger contribution from Europe.

Do you think Ukraine can win this war? To give a definition here: victory by ejecting the Russian army from the occupied regions (excluding Crimea).
 

mmttww

Well-Known Member
Do you think Ukraine can win this war? To give a definition here: victory by ejecting the Russian army from the occupied regions (excluding Crimea).

I think they deserve support from anyone capable of giving it, seeing as they've held out for three years, saving everyone else from having to get their hands dirty. I don't think anyone wins wars, either. Sides just lose less.

I also can't be arsed to get into debates on subjects like this on here. My experience is people are entrenched and want to win the argument. When they start losing that, they deflect or get personal. No genuine interest in a debate.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
And if the US invaded Greenland they would have no chance either, so I guess you'd be quite happy for that to happen so the US can get what it wants through aggression.

Well it tends to get what it wants through aggression anyway not that I see Greenland under too much threat just yet
 

skyblueinBaku

Well-Known Member
In the end there is one discussion here from a uk perspective

This country economically from what i am seeing is in a crises. Demand in the sector I work in is as low as I’ve known it since I’ve been in it and on top of that we are getting punitive measures against business which will cause job losses and business closures.

Against that backdrop should the UK be increasing defence budgets and spending billions on Ukraine?

I say no. What do others say?
Crises plural of crisis
 

mmttww

Well-Known Member
as much as I think Starmer is a bag of balls, at least he's stood solid with EU leaders and backed the stance that sanctions on Russia shouldn't be lifted until peace is established.
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
as much as I think Starmer is a bag of balls, at least he's stood solid with EU leaders and backed the stance that sanctions on Russia shouldn't be lifted until peace is established.

Putin is clearly not interested in a ceasefire and is up to his usual tricks. It would be daft to lift any sanctions.
 

SkyBlueDom26

Well-Known Member
A lot of European leaders are standing up to Trump.

Then there's Starmer...

I actually give him credit, the last thing we want to do is piss off our main Ally and who we do so much trade with. If he is clever, we can actually take advantage of everyone else throwing toys out of the pram
 

fatso

Well-Known Member
I actually give him credit, the last thing we want to do is piss off our main Ally and who we do so much trade with. If he is clever, we can actually take advantage of everyone else throwing toys out of the pram
Unfortunately a lot of people won't see it that way, they won't grasp the reality that Trump is threatening tariffs on the EU and not the UK. And as things stand there's a chance we could do a unilateral trade agreement with the US that would give us a massive advantage over the rest of Europe.

Hence why Starmer is agreeing to increase defence spending (at Trumps suggestion) to hopefully encourage the US to negotiate a tariff free trade deal.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Wonder what the security service's were thinking and not co-ordinating with the other allies (US), What on earth has Boris started here,so strange to allow some in give them a nighthood buy up loads of London asset's,have all sorts of murder's on the streets of Britain?
 

Brighton Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
has anyone through to tell Trump he's supposed to be our main ally as he's not acting like it. How much shit is it acceptable for him to hurl our way before you'd expect our government to respond?
Trump’s been too busy trying to annexe his country’s main ally to notice what we’re up to.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
I actually give him credit, the last thing we want to do is piss off our main Ally and who we do so much trade with. If he is clever, we can actually take advantage of everyone else throwing toys out of the pram
It's largely irrelevant as he would happily throw us or anyone else under the bus if he thinks he'll benefit. He and his cohorts care nothing about alliances or agreements, just what they can get for themselves. We could lick Trump's arse so hard we could tickle his tonsils but he'd still happily put tariffs on at a moment's notice.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
It's largely irrelevant as he would happily throw us or anyone else under the bus if he thinks he'll benefit. He and his cohorts care nothing about alliances or agreements, just what they can get for themselves. We could lick Trump's arse so hard we could tickle his tonsils but he'd still happily put tariffs on at a moment's notice.

You could just replace the word Trump with USA - it’s always been thus
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
Fucking hell. Trump presumably wants them to reject this deal so he can blame them for being the bad guys.

There's no way they can accept this, surely.

Donald Trump is holding a gun to the head of Volodymyr Zelensky, demanding huge reparations payments and laying claim to half of Ukraine’s oil, gas, and hydrocarbon resources as well as almost all its metals and much of its infrastructure. The latest version of his “minerals deal”, obtained by The Telegraph, is unprecedented in the history of modern diplomacy and state relations.

The new draft states that the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund will control Ukraine’s “critical minerals or other minerals, oil, natural gas (including liquified [sic] natural gas), fuels or other hydrocarbons and other extractable materials”.

All critical materials listed in the US Energy Act are covered, including both rare earths and 50 other minerals such as lithium, titanium, cobalt, aluminium and zinc.

The US will control infrastructure linked to natural resources “including, but not limited to, roads, rail, pipelines and other transportation assets; ports, terminals and other logistics facilities and refineries, processing facilities, natural gas liquefaction and/or regasification facilities and similar assets”.

Three of the five board members on the new fund will be chosen by the US. It will have “A” shares and golden shares. America will receive all the royalties until Ukraine has paid off at least $100bn of war debt to the US, with 4pc interest added – less than the $350bn floated earlier by Mr Trump but still half of Ukraine’s GDP, and unpayable. Ukraine has only “B’ shares and will receive 50pc of the royalties only once its arrears are paid off.

The fund is registered in Delaware but under New York jurisdiction. The US has the first right of refusal on all projects. It has authority to examine the books and accounts of any Ukrainian ministry or agency whenever it wants during working hours.

The US can veto sales of Ukraine’s resources to other countries, which might mean banning rare earth sales to China but might also restrict sales to Europe. Prof Riley said: “It is not compatible with EU membership, and perhaps that is part of the purpose. I have to wonder whether the real intention might not be to force Zelensky to reject it.”

The US pays in no investment capital, deeming its contribution to be past military aid. No security guarantee is offered.

the terms are if anything even harsher than the original drafts, which were deemed predatory and neo-colonial by international lawyers, and which caused outrage in much of Europe. The document smacks of the unequal treaties imposed on China by the European powers in the 19th century.



 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top