Said UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, quoted in "Ukraine-Russia latest: Putin ‘should not be rewarded’, Zelensky says/Ukrainian leader has denounced ‘cynical’ Russian attacks before his meeting with Trump in Washington, which have killed at least nine" (London Times).
Let that stand in for all the many headlines I'm seeing this morning about the White House meeting today. It's more optimistic than most. There are reasons to go negative before the meeting, but I think it's bad form.
Posts
22 comments:
Watching from afar at the way England treats its own citizens and witnessing them protect a bunch of pedophile rapists, I hope they do put boots on the ground and I hope Russia grinds them into a red, pulpy mist.
Putin should stand strong against this England.
“more optimistic than most”
"Boots on the ground," eh? I remember a few months ago when the EU was all "Fuck Trump we're going to supply Ukraine with materiel and soldiers!" Yet they managed to raise a pittance compared to what we were spending and they sent not one boot to the ground in Ukraine.
Now that peace talks are at hand the big talking Euros come crashing ashore again, claiming they are "ready." My gut reaction is where the fuck have you Euros been the whole time? Why are you still buying Russian gas?
The status quo was fine for most of these schleps.
But blessed are the peacemakers…
These once tight-knit friends all hate one another and are doomed to stay in each other's lives out of habit.
Funny to see Keir Starmer, the man best known at this point for jailing older women and men in his country for merely holding up signs questioning his immigration policies, taking a strong stand against the Russians.
The man who has his police knock at the door of someone's home who made a comment on X.
The Russians know who Keir Starmer is just as sure as I do. They do not fear Kier Starmer or his social media security troops.
And our media is beside themselves finding massive negatives where they do not exist for everything Trump is doing. And...frankly, he's doing more than any of the last 10 Presidents combined. Unless you think Obamacare was a big f*****g deal. As of today, how big a deal do you think it really was?
it looks like As of January 1, 2025, the British Army consists of 108,413 personnel. This includes 73,847 regular full-time personnel.
so, IF the brits put their ENTIRE full time force (men, women, etc) into the Ukraine.. All 73 thousand of them..
How much of a difference would That make?
(the Ukraine admits that itAlready had about 43 thousand KIA)
Thanks, Iman. Fixed.
"It is obviously welcome that President Trump has paved the way for vital US security guarantees....”
And what “security guarantees” (plural!?!) ’would those be? They’d best not involve American boots on the ground or aircraft where they could be shot down or naval vessels sailing in harm’s way. Between Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam we, the US taxpayers, have had it.
There are reasons to go negative before the meeting, but I think it's bad form.
Quite right, Professor. Thank you.
"IF the brits put their ENTIRE full time force (men, women, etc) into the Ukraine.. All 73 thousand of them..
How much of a difference would That make?
It would reduce the casualties in London by 73,000 when Putin responds by putting a nuclear bomb up the UK's arse.
If any country ... say China ... put 73,000 of their troops in say Portland and began ramping up for a full-scale assault on the United States ... is there anyone among you who wouldn't be calling for the annihilation of China, using our nuclear weapons?
It's retarded for people to even suggest that the UK is going to put a single soldier on Russian soil. The UK was utterly defeated in World War II by little old Germany firing a few rockets at them.
Except for American intervention, they'd all be eating beets for dinner instead of fish & chips.
FormerLawClerk?
are you not able to read English?
here.. I'll type S L O W E R F O R Y O U
Britain no longer even HAS an Army..
Their ENTIRE full time force is less than 73,000 people.
(MOST of which are NOT fighters)
They can NOT make ANY affect on the war in the Ukraine..
NOT EVEN, if they sent their ENTIRE army there..
get it? do you want me to translate it into some OTHER language?
"The UK was utterly defeated in World War II by little old Germany firing a few rockets at them."
Putting this in Second World War terms, FLC fires one of those defective circle-back Mark XIV torpedoes.
Starmer states his government's commitment to the Religion of Peace.
How many Britain’s force prepared for combat vs the ones there for virtue signaling?
"We are ready to put UK boots on the ground in part to reassure Ukrainians but in part to secure safe skies, safe seas and regenerate Ukraine’s armed forces."
I am betting that the Brits who would be put into Ukraine are a lot less enthusiastic than Starmer is. But Starmer is happy to reduce the number of native military age males in Britain for sure. His goal is to replace the Native population so why not kill some of his army off.
All of these people are talking out of their ass. They will not go to war with Russia unless the US is on their side.
Europe's only goal here is to have the US conquer Russia for them.
War is the health of the State and the Ukraine is the best spa for the sick men of Europe.
We should be liberating the British People from their rulers before we start dying to keep a bunch of corrupt Oligarchs who cancelled elections in charge of Ukraine.
Any aid or security guarantees to Ukraine should only take affect after free fair elections.
We should be liberating the British People from their rulers before we start dying to keep a bunch of corrupt Oligarchs who cancelled elections in charge of Ukraine.
The EU is dying...
The EU is Jonestown.
I agree there’s value in waiting to see what the talks produce before poisoning the well. But optimism alone can’t erase what we’ve already seen: an Alaska summit heavy on theatrics that gave Putin a stage without delivering even a ceasefire, and a president who not long ago told Zelenskyy he maybe shouldn’t have “started” the war to begin with and should have cut a deal. That history shapes how Ukrainians and many Europeans are hearing these new promises of peace.
If Trump can turn his showmanship into a deal that truly stops the killing without rewarding aggression, that would be worth celebrating.
Ronald J. Ward said...
If Trump can turn his showmanship into a deal that truly stops the killing without rewarding aggression, that would be worth celebrating.
The talking points are out.
The US Deep State wants to make sure that they never have to accept their responsibility for starting this war.
Joe Biden and Boris Johnson started this war when they told Zelenksy not to sign the Mingsk accords and Kamala Harris talked about Ukraine joining NATO.
Now that Ronald and his Deep State rulers have lost the war they started they demand that Trump achieve the impossible save Ukrainian territorial sovereignty. Otherwise Trump "failed." It is disgusting.
These people are like Ronald are monstrous pieces of shit who are absolutely dishonest and terrible people. They have sacrificed a generation of Ukrainian men in their desperate quest to expand NATO to the Pacific Ocean so Europe can steal Russian natural resources.
There is nothing in his post that is good faith. He is a terrible person.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.