Zelensky visiting ❤

[MsAmerica]

Zelenskyy visits Britain as Prime Minister Andy Burnham signals more support for Kyiv
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/zelenskyy-visits-britain-as-prime-minister-andy-burnham-signals-more-support-for-kyiv

Zelensky visit sends clear message of support for Ukraine, Burnham says
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy8me5vyjg2o

Zelenskyy to visit Britain Monday as Burnham announces Stone Cloak technology transfer to Ukraine – media
en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/1188296.html

Has someone already mentioned that Ukraine's constitution suspends elections in war time?

I often have differing opinions, and no one has called me a Russian bot (yet).

Yes, it saddens me to look at him. He originally had a bit of a boyish look to him.

Totally agree that the world should have done more for Z early on, and I think the U.S. is most grievously at fault. When I first heard of the Palestinian attack on Israel, my first thought was: Oh, no - it's going to suck money away from Ukraine.

Either side could always stop any war by surrendering.

How could we have played things differently without a risk of escalation? What risk of nuclear escalation would have been reasonable to take to stop Putin invading Ukraine? 10%? 1% ? In my view, even 1% chance of human extinction is way too much to take to save a piece of Ukraine.

I think, at a global level, we got it pretty much spot on. Putin is bogged down, losing his treasure and people, not in a position to bother anyone else, nor given any excuse to escalate to a tactical nuke.

The hope is that Putin will die relatively soon and Russia will want to reintegrate into the global system, and then a Ukrainian settlement can be revisited.

Trump has complicated things by giving Putin a sniff at victory, but I think that even he would change his tone if Russia advanced beyond the Donbas.

If we had put a million troops into the Ukraine before he invaded there would have been no war, no risk of nuclear conflict and we would have saved over a million lives.

Why on earth would Putin attack NATO knowing he would be destroyed within a week even by conventional means. They are the facts, Putin can't defeat NATO, Putin can't even defeat the Ukraine at the current losses. Putin Lost over 2000 troops yesterday...14,000 a week. He's training just 5000 a week. Basic maths tells me he's running out of men and women.

The risk of nuclear conflict is now higher than it was during the cold war, Putin has trapped himself in a losing conflict. Had we stopped the conflict the risk of a nuclear exchange would have been virtually zero.

Losing the Ukraine would be an utter disaster for Europe, and Poland would almost certainly break ranks and engage Russia if that happened. Guaranteed if Poland steps in, you will have the Polish army in Moscow knocking on the doors of the Kremlin within a month. There is the problem....it escalates and when things escalate the risk of nuclear exchange becomes an increasingly a possibility.

We have a choice to make either we bolster the Ukraine or this war will wear us out and we will lose everything.

@dwordle ,

‘If we had put a million troops into the Ukraine before he invaded there would have been no war, no risk of nuclear conflict and we would have saved over a million lives.’

Where would these million troops have come from? Would we just have sneaked them in? Do you honestly think that if 1 million NATO troops had swarmed into Ukraine, there would be zero risk of Russia using a tactical nuke? I don’t, and clearly not did the Pentagon.

The thing is that you don’t think that Putin would escalate to nukes, and maybe you are right. However, he may calculate that, for Russia, and for him (and he makes little distinction between the two, MAD would be a preferable outcome to a humiliating defeat and possible invasion of Russia (no, it may not be our intention, but he wouldn’t believe that).

Putin isn’t going to get all of Ukraine, though. That is where the West was quite clever. He may get the Donbas and get to celebrate a pyrrhic victory, with no weapons, men or desire to go to war any time soon.

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/putin-floats-a-summit-with-trump-and-xi-to-decide-ukraines-fate-1cf6acc1?st=wtwjuq&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Putin Floats a Summit With Trump and Xi to Discuss Ukraine Deal

Ukraine’s Zelensky wouldn’t be included in proposed talks, as Russia’s leader seeks to negotiate end to war favorable to Moscow

Maybe he will be happy with 'just' a part of Ukraine

The conflict in Eastern Ukraine has been going on for many years, with the Ukranian government shelling and killing it's own people in a struggle against the predominantly Russian speaking population in these areas, many of whom identify as Russian and want separation from Ukraine, and an end to the persecution they have been facing since the previous Ukrainian government was overthrown in 2014 with help from the UK and other Western nations.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/02/ukraine-horror-civilian-bloodshed-indiscriminate-attacks/

The persecution of the Russian speaking people of Eastern Ukraine intensified under Zelensky. With this in mind, the protection of these 'Russian' people was a key reason why Putin decided to invade Eastern Ukraine. Putin is no angel, but neither is Zelensky who, together with his corrupt government, has bought much of this on himself and the people of Ukraine. But all we hear about here in our media is about how bad Putin is. They are both tyrants, Putin and Zelensky.

That said, Putin has stated on multiple occasions that he has zero interest in invading or launching attacks on anywhere else in Europe. Nor outside a Nuclear War which no one wins, does he have the capacity to do so. Yet it suits us here in the West to believe that Putin is the ultimate villain. It make huge amounts of money for our defence industry, and our support for Ukraine comes with conditions attached, that our companies get to make billions by rebuilding the country after the war, and we get access to Ukraine's huge amount of natural resources.

As they say, don't believe half of what you read on the news. There is always another side to the story.

Russia invaded Ukraine, there is no other side to that story.

Remember Bucha?

Yes and I've just told you the main reason why. If your people were being butchered at the hands of a foreign power, would you sit back and do nothing about it? Or would you fight back?

Are you talking about Ukraine?

In 2014 Russia annexed Crimea and then supported Russian separatists in the Donbas war.

Yup, but only after the 2014 government coup orchestrated by the US and the West.

The Maidan Revolution

When you say Yup, you mean that you agree with Ukraine fighting back against the invader aka Russia?

They are entitled to do whatever they like. But please understand that Zelensky is equally as bad as Putin, and there are way more reasons behind this conflict than we are told by our media (i.e. simply Putin = bad). Zelensky is far from the innocent party in this conflict and is nothing like the hero our media like to portray him.

No, Zelenskyy is not equally as bad as Putin.

What media do you use for your truth?

My reading is that Churchill was not the nicest of people. Racist and rather class obsessed . Less of a a hero across the Empire, depending where you looked.

However even as people were aware of that, it seemed they were less keen on Hitler.

Suggesting that trying to equate unequatables is fraught with complexity

I like to use a wide range of media, left, right, centre leaning and independent. In that way I can compare sources and likely bias. Ground News is also fairly good for being able to do this. My DH also has relations in Eastern Ukraine, about 20km outside of Donetsk so we hear news from the horses mouth over there so to speak. I also follow several twitter (X) feeds from 'on the ground' sources in this region.

But let me guess, you predominantly use the BBC and other UK sources for your news, am I right?

You do understand that the mainstream news we hear (or don't hear) here in the UK is heavily biased and full of propaganda don't you? It would be the same in Russia too, just bias in the other direction. There are always two sides to any story.

No, you are guessing wrong. I read a lot of national and international news. A lot of them can be found on Ground News.

Okay so you understand that there are always two sides to every story then. Often both sides can be somewhat valid.

It's a bit like a divorce. The wife had an affair. The husband says "but she had the affair so it's all her fault for ruining the marriage". But the wife says, "yes but he's shown me no love for years, criticised everything I did, was controlling, jealous, and would regularly beat me".

Currently the UK and our media is on the side of the husband in the above scenario, ignoring almost everything the wife is saying and has been through.

At the same time the UK is bad mouthing the wife at any opportunity, ganging up against the wife with the husband's mates, and making up rumours about them. (like in the case of Russia, they are an existential threat to the UK and are planning to invade the rest of Europe for example).

Most people in the UK only ever get to hear one side of what's been happening.

You seem keen to not mention that Russia invaded Ukraine in your rather strange example.

My goodness, some people are hard work and difficult to engage with, don't you find?

You mean the ones who tell fairy stories?

Yes, especially those who say there are bad people on both sides.

Only one country invaded the other. Apparently the invaded country should appease the invader.

?

Cool story. Anyway . . .