It was a cock up.It probably was just a fire but the fact that counter terrorism officers are involved indicates that the government are considering it an option.
Everyone is probably aware of their actions against countries supporting Ukraine but here's a link of a recent report on their actions.
Russia’s Shadow War Against the West
Russia is conducting a violent and escalating campaign of sabotage and subversion against European and U.S. targets in Europe led by Russian military intelligence, according to a new CSIS database. The number of Russian attacks nearly tripled between 2023 and 2024.www.csis.org
It was a cock up.
It was a cock up.
It was a cock up.
Again, they’ve been actively supporting and funding Israel committing war crimes and this is supposed to be a shock?
The previous administration was also actively supporting and funding it.Nothing the current US administration does is a shock.
Doesn't mean we should just nod along and doesn't mean we can't point it out.
The previous administration was also actively supporting and funding it.
As has been said many times by many people on here, it's a country that has always and will always act in its best interests above all else, regardless of its allies.Yes but they weren't supporting Russia, which this thread is about.
"Supporting a long term ally" - is also an interesting turn of phrase for funding war crimes.And of course it's more shocking for the US to come out in support of a long time adversary than it is to continue supporting a long term ally. Just silly to pretend otherwise.
As has been said many times by many people on here, it's a country that has always and will always act in its best interests above all else, regardless of its allies.
"Supporting a long term ally" - is also an interesting turn of phrase for funding war crimes.
There's no point scoring going on here. Just pointing out their hypocrisy and why it's not a surprise.Quit with the pathetic attempts at point scoring.
I'm not defending it. They've done it for years, doesn't mean it's right or I agree with it, it's not just surprising. Suddenly coming out to bat for a long term adversary is.
There's no point scoring going on here. Just pointing out their hypocrisy and why it's not a surprise.
Why is continuing the war suddenly not in its best interests after having been so for 2.5 years?As has been said many times by many people on here, it's a country that has always and will always act in its best interests above all else, regardless of its allies.
Argh yes, but no one wants to remember that or point it out, it doesn't fit with the "blame Trump for all the worlds woes" agenda.The previous administration was also actively supporting and funding it.
Why is continuing the war suddenly not in its best interests after having been so for 2.5 years?
Explain howA different view on China is the difference.
Why is continuing the war suddenly not in its best interests after having been so for 2.5 years?
Argh yes, but no one wants to remember that or point it out, it doesn't fit with the "blame Trump for all the worlds woes" agenda.
Government policy often changes when a new party is elected into power, apart from in the case of Starmer.It went from 'the US wants a forever war to fund their defence sector' to 'the US is withdrawing support to save billions of dollars' real quick.
‘A country always acts in its best interests’Government policy often changes when a new party is elected into power, apart from in the case of Starmer.
Because the new administration has clearly taken a more isolationist stance, which they see as being in their best interest.‘A country always acts in its best interests’
Why has ending the war suddenly become that after years of supporting Ukraine?
The upcoming war with Iran and bombing of Yemen notwithstanding of course.Because the new administration has clearly taken a more isolationist stance, which they see as being in their best interest.
Of course, it kind of proves the point that they’re solely focused on their own self-interests.The upcoming war with Iran and bombing of Yemen notwithstanding of course.
How is engaging in fresh conflicts the sign of being more isolationist?Of course, it kind of proves the point that they’re solely focused on their own self-interests.
...because they're protecting what they perceive to be their self-interests.How is engaging in fresh conflicts the sign of being more isolationist?
...because they're protecting what they perceive to be their self-interests.
It's not at all.That's not isolationism. It's the very opposite.
They may well be acting in their own self interests, but it's certainly not isolationism.
Here is that engineerIt was a cock up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?