Well it's better doing it that way than direct from Russia. But the ban comes in in January, so it'll stop then. Which probably explains Russia's sudden interest in a deal again.
Where are the purchases from India from?
Well it's better doing it that way than direct from Russia. But the ban comes in in January, so it'll stop then. Which probably explains Russia's sudden interest in a deal again.
The article I’ve just posted said it will do nothing of the sort?
Thoughts on that and the blatant stockpiling?
It's not a Starmer-ism, if you're trying to suggest he came up with the phrase.
When did Boris get rid of our storage for gas?
So after Brexit then, naïve.It was Centrica (British Gas) who closed the most recent storage facility in 2017 by looks of it. Government refused to subsidise it. Part of successive governments solid energy security plans !!
Royal Navy intercepts two Russian ships in English Channel
HMS Severn headed off the warship and a tanker as they sailed west through the Dover Strait, the Ministry of Defence said.www.bbc.co.uk
and Tan Man wonders why no one will just blindly support his big, giant deal. You love to see it.
If we support his deal isn’t for us the main issue. I don’t love to see us wasting more money propping up a battered country which we have zero interest in and creating more deaths.
You’re talking to someone who genuinely sees no problem with Russia absorbing the biggest country in Europe except for Russia itself. Probably not worth entertaining what he says.Doing what are now is the third option i.e. not leave Ukraine to get annexed, and not have to put our own troops on the ground via NATO etc.
If you'd rather leave Putin to grab countries as he sees fit, crack on. I'm glad we and others are at least funding and supporting Ukraine like we are.
Doing what are now is the third option i.e. not leave Ukraine to get annexed, and not have to put our own troops on the ground via NATO etc.
If you'd rather leave Putin to grab countries as he sees fit, crack on. I'm glad we and others are at least funding and supporting Ukraine like we are.
If we don't support Ukraine then it won't just be soldiers that die (not that it is anyway with Russia bombing civilians) there, there will be a genocide there the likes of which haven't been seen in Europe since the 1940's and history will look even worse than us sitting on our hands.There is never any requirement regarding NATO - we are funding Ukraine to allow their soldiers to die and are more than happy for it to continue and keep buying as much energy as we need off Russia. History will look very badly on the West regarding this nonsense
We aren't "funding Ukraine to allow their soldiers to die", we are funding Ukraine so they don't cease to exist.
Hope this rationalises some of the points:
I would think better than full capitulation followed by thousands of mass graves dotted around.Erm how’s that going
we are funding Ukraine to allow their soldiers to die and are more than happy for it to continue and keep buying as much energy as we need off Russia. History will look very badly on the West regarding this nonsense
Of course. Principled opposition looks like going 'all in' on aid to Ukraine and cutting off all ties with Russia completely, irrespective of the discomfort it would cause us. Europe talks tough but ultimately hasn't put its weight behind Ukraine to give it a realistic chance of winning. Of course France, Germany and indeed the UK is no counterweight to Russia because all of our military spending has been gradually hollowed out to support bloating welfare budgets since the end of the Cold War.There is never any requirement regarding NATO - we are funding Ukraine to allow their soldiers to die and are more than happy for it to continue and keep buying as much energy as we need off Russia. History will look very badly on the West regarding this nonsense
That's exactly what the USA wants tbqhOf course. Principled opposition looks like going 'all in' on aid to Ukraine and cutting off all ties with Russia completely, irrespective of the discomfort it would cause us. Europe talks tough but ultimately hasn't put its weight behind Ukraine to give it a realistic chance of winning. Of course France, Germany and indeed the UK is no counterweight to Russia because all of our military spending has been gradually hollowed out to support bloating welfare budgets since the end of the Cold War.
The 'best' outcome for Ukraine is to hold on long enough that there is regime change in Russia. The odds of that happening is remote.
That's exactly what the USA wants tbqh
1. Russia engaged in ongoing warfare
2. Massive new markets to sell liquified gas and whatever else to
more badly than if we'd told Putin to help himself at the outset? What would you have done? What would you do now?
Really there were two choices: allow Putin to annexe Ukraine or arm it sufficiently to produce a stalemate to force him to negotiate. Any arming beyond that has been dismissed as something that would provoke him into using his nuclear arsenal.Of course. Principled opposition looks like going 'all in' on aid to Ukraine and cutting off all ties with Russia completely, irrespective of the discomfort it would cause us. Europe talks tough but ultimately hasn't put its weight behind Ukraine to give it a realistic chance of winning. Of course France, Germany and indeed the UK is no counterweight to Russia because all of our military spending has been gradually hollowed out to support bloating welfare budgets since the end of the Cold War.
The 'best' outcome for Ukraine is to hold on long enough that there is regime change in Russia. The odds of that happening is remote.
Really there were two choices: allow Putin to annexe Ukraine or arm it sufficiently to produce a stalemate to force him to negotiate. Any arming beyond that has been dismissed as something that would provoke him into using his nuclear arsenal.
While absolutely Russian fossil fuels should have stopped being imported, what else could Western leaders have done in response to something Putin started?
Is that why Trump spent all that time trying to get a deal signed?The US have never wanted this war to end? Why can’t you see this?
Is that why Trump spent all that time trying to get a deal signed?
I suggest you read the Wolfowitz Doctrine...
or you could actually venture your own opinion
I get your position perfectly. Ukraine is irrelevant so we should have let Putin have it.You will never get it.
Trump is really stepping out of line and shoots from the hip but in the end will just carry on with the resistance
Ask yourself this. Why did Biden and the US administration ever get involved at all in a European conflict? Because they believe in the Doctrine - US military policy has seen Russia as a super power threat. So this invasion was perfect. It meant they could prop up a battered country just enough to occupy Russian resources and military troops for years - Ukraine will just carry on fighting and dying but would be kept alive enough to carry on fighting for as long as possible
It’s the American Dream
Er that is my opinion.
The Russian economy relies heavily on its gas/oil exports so that would've been a massive step to take. The West as a whole has given Ukraine just enough to sustain its war effort but never enough to win it.Really there were two choices: allow Putin to annexe Ukraine or arm it sufficiently to produce a stalemate to force him to negotiate. Any arming beyond that has been dismissed as something that would provoke him into using his nuclear arsenal.
While absolutely Russian fossil fuels should have stopped being imported, what else could Western leaders have done in response to something Putin started?
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?