The crook has just fleeced the UK of 2.5 billion quid. Everyone's taxes going into his back pocket.

Apart from he didn't...

1. £2.5 billion is the amount projected for the next financial year, its not a lump sum. I doubt most of it is even allocated as of yet.

2. If you think we are packing up money and putting in a van then there is little helping you. Most of this money actually stays in the UK where it helps creates jobs. For example £200 million on drone manufacturing.

[Link]

I'm pretty sure that won't happen.....and the main reason for that is Poland, which just wouldn't accept Russia on its border and the security agreements Ukraine has with us and soon France and others.

While Trump will draw back from Nato he won't abandon it for several reasons.

Here is what I think happens.....the eventual agreement (whether Trump wins or not) sees Russia take its four regions and maybe Odessa.

Enabling this in Ukraine will probably be done via the election of a candidate who promises peace with Russia. I very much suspect that this is what happens....there might even be a level of internal conflict in Ukraine similar to how the Irish had their own internal war before settling with the British in 1917.

If Russia has other territory, other than the areas it identified it'll negotiate it away for a neutral Ukraine that isn't allowed to join Nato and hence not to be militarised against it. How much of that they get remains to be seen.

As for the further expansion by Russia into eastern European states that have sided against it. This isn't knowable and no doubt Europe can flood these countries with weapons like they did Ukraine. Personally I don't see Russia staying within regions that don't have Russian friendly populations already there.

The idea that Putin will be Stalin and take back the old empire goes directly against what he has said since the nineties. He has criticised the Soviet empire many times. However, states that are willing to be 'Ukraines' aren't being particularly sensible.

I said at the start that this course of action was insane and I have no pleasure in these outcomes. Hundreds of thousands dead in the most avoidable war I've ever seen.

The decisions to essentially jump to neo con policy in the US state department has been a terrible decision by Europe. I predict my opinion will slowly become recognised across Europe.....mainly because defence budgets will rise and welfare will have to be cut for that to happen.

The policy of not supporting the confrontational agenda of the US is prominent in several rising parties in Europe. Farage supported it and so do the Afd in Germany, who are leading the polls.

The policy put Russia into China's arms, led to a global split in the world with a new cold war with now several flash points for WW3.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jan 2024 10.43am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

What is and has been anathema to Russia throughout its history is an opposing force on its border. It has endured a long, bitter history to forge this position. The post WWII Eastern Bloc states surrounding the Soviet Union and providing a buffer zone against further invasion (whether perceived or real), is just the latest iteration of how Russia and USSR have sought to achieve that.

The hybrid you envisage may be accepted by Putin as a stage 1, but he will not rest until Mother Russia is secure with vassal states or open seas on every border.

What Poland accepts or does not accept is neither here not there. Russia will not be interested in its view. Trump will pretend to listen but ultimately sell them down the river in favour of diverting resources to US domestic policy, especially homeland security at the Rio Grande. US allies in Europe will be placated so long as they agree to pay their way in NATO. Since they won't, they will ultimately be left to wring their hands in impotence.

You may be correct in terms of Russia's further ambitions. And that Putin is not Stalin. Uncle Joe had reached the Elbe and apparently addressed his generals. We have 400 divisions in the field (c4million men at arms) why should we not continue to the Azores? The Bomb apparently persuaded him not to or at least to put that ambition on ice.

Putin harks back not to that world domination by the proletariat, but to Tsarist Russia and the need to protect the Motherland through border expansion. Finland may be considered a safe border but there have been centuries of conflict. However, the Baltic states continue to have a lot of Russian speakers and have morphed into and out of Russian control over history. They are under genuine threat.

But they are also NATO members with US airbases. For this reason, I think this risk is hyperbole used by the West to drum up support for supporting Ukraine. Putin has seen how effective his army is against his undernourished neighbour with relatively limited Western support. He will know it will end very badly if he attacks a NATO member and sees the dogs of war fully unleashed... I suspect he will settle for a pet Ukraine and some medium term stability will be restored.

The post script I omitted is that we may be seen to be right to support Ukraine, even though the outcome seems likely to end with what Putin wants.

Simply put, while Putin shares Stalin's disregard for the lives of his own troops, he has seen that it is politically and financially too costly to prosecute an offensive campaign on his western borders.

Edited by silvertop (17 Jan 2024 1.01pm)

Surely that was the point of NATO providing the support it has, and applying the sanctions?

If he had been able to walk all over Ukraine with little resistance and his army largely intact who knows where the line would then be drawn or what the future would hold. Especially with the threat of a second Trump presidency lurking in people’s minds?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.