Gnasher

Oh I think we (the west) can match the Russians if your post referred to my comment on Russia's invasion of other countries compared to us. I don't think Russia are the only country involved in Syria although they're possibly the only one who were actually invited.

Numero turns up pretending he's got me on ignore.

Have I? Salisbury? I thought Corbyn's handling of Salisbury was wrong and stupid. You're throwing silly slurs now. As I've said above the world contains an awful lot of your 'Putin apologists' maybe just maybe its possible they'd rather dial down the rhetoric that could lead to a nuclear war?

The last weeks situation in Ukraine in facts. The American president has warned a nuclear war cannot be a contained war and will lead to Armageddon. Which incidentally is exactly the same as what the previous president said. Probably the only thing they both agree on. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy said Nato should consider a preemptive nuclear strike against Russia.. ( although thankfully he has since said his comments were taken the wrong way) Here in Britain we're being warned of winter blackouts in part because of sanctions over Ukraine. Further afield in Brazil 200 million people are on the verge of electing a president who has continually pushe d for peace talks to halt the war. That's an awful lot of Putin apologists. On the subject of Putin apologists one of thd worlds richest men has joined the Putin apologist list (however rich he is he's still behind the Pope at the very top of the list) by calling for peace talks to end the war. Luckily if you read the daily mail you'll know these Putin apologists are few and far between and the whole world is still united in throwing more logs on the Ukrainian bonfire. The whole world is indeed united if you ignore Africa, S, America, China, and large parts of India and Asia. But who gives a fuck what they think? Here's Brazil, https://www.telesurenglish.net/amp/news/Lula-and-Bolsonaro-on-Ukraine-and-Sanctions-Against-Russia-20220930-0015.html

Start with Zelenskyy.

Realist.

He hasn't because he may not have intended to. Russia have had trouble of sorts with Ukraine since 2014. Compared to all the countries America/Britain have interfered with over the past two decades they're choirboys. And as for the question in your other post, plenty of people commented if we don't stop Russia/Putin they'll roll across Europe.

They really have completely lost the plot.

Yep the Tories are all mad. What a crackpot party.

The fucking spice girls are involved in Tory sleaze now.

Tories love this country, true patriots. Gone down well. Another U turn coming. Truss is like a spinning top.

If we're talking random countries that Putin will attack next can I pick Belgium?

Oh I think they did. Their were a lot of comparisons to Nazi Germany and world war 2. All proved to be hysterical clap trap of course.

But he hasn't invaded any other countries and isn't likely to so you're talking hypothetical nonsense.

Have they? OK, I suppose it makes sense The point i was trying to make is Russia pose no threat at all to western Europe. I thinking when at the start of the invasion into Ukraine some people were saying Russia could turn into another world war 2 Germany and storm right across Europe.

Becuse the two countries hate each other? Anyway don't worry Rico, you're safe, the Russians will be stopped before Salford. The only threat to you and me are Russias nukes, their conventional army couldn't whip the skin off custard.

Yeah maybe. I think you're definitely right about Biden being under others control. Putes is a bit more difficult to predict, some of his latest ramblings (about Catherine the Great etc) are unhinged.

That's what I'm thinking to be honest. You hit it there. I think it's possible Putin is so mad he'd rather use nuclear weapons than be humiliated. I believe the old saying in war is "always give the loser a golden bridge to go back across"..

Russia is in no position of strength to do fuck all again, they wouldn't get as far as Poland. They have got nukes though and that's where the worry is.

I didn't say it was a "limited" win for Ukraine, you're putting words in my mouth. I said if Russia lose it could increase the prospect of Putin using nuclear weapons. Good to know you're probably one of the only person on the planet who knows how this is going to pan out. I hate to tell you that if you are right and Putin "ain't going to be the guy in charge" then the days surrounding his demise will be very nervous ones for the whole world. Who knows (bar for you of course) how that'll pan out?

I'm going to make a wild guess that Craig Murray is left wing.

Well the other way is to make some sort of peace deal. Otherwise its a limited win or lose outcome. If Russia does face the prospect of losing it probably increases the likelihood of Putin using nuclear weapons, so the victory party might be followed with one almighty hangover.

Because Putin won't pull out of Ukraine. Thats why the "if" word is doing heavy lifting. Its not going to happen imo.

He's a Conservative so would it be presumptuous to suggest something regarding lewd sexual misconduct?

No it's not what I was saying. I was replying to Rico saying "if" Russia pulled out of Ukraine all this would be over, which it would be over, he's right. I was making the point that the "if" word in his assumption could prove problematic. DJLJ seemed to think I said (if I've read his post right) that it's a question of "if" Russia pulls out of Ukraine, which is not what i meant. Which is why I think he replied (again if I have read him right) it's not a question of "if" but when Russia pull out of Ukraine. It's not imo a question of when Russia pulls out of Ukraine. I'm not sure it's that clear cut.