You know better than Ukraine what’s good for Ukraine. You know better than the PM of Sweden what’s good for Sweden. You know better than Macron. You know better than Biden. You know better than all NATO countries put together.
Does anything ever give you pause to reconsider your absolutist views?
When anyone demurs with any of your childish and simplistic pronouncements you make up things they say and respond to those instead. Your arrogance is astounding.
Yeah mate, but Sid has pronounced that it is exactly the same and that he is right and all world leaders are wrong, who are you to question that? Answer the question.
Do you not have some basic sense of embarrassment about the nonsense you post here, when it is yourself that has spent the last two months claiming to know more than the Ukrainians?
I have never once mischaracterised your views. The truth is you are too cowardly to admit to your views so you talk in Ewanish.
Your view is: fuck Ukraine and let them die as a state and as a people.
That’s what it is. I know it, you know it, we all know it.
Chamberlain being alive made him better suited than me mate. That’s about as serious an answer as your question deserves. You want to compare two things that aren’t a similar comparison because the variables are so different.
And you refuse to accept that the existance of nukes changes the parameters massively. For some reason you’re fixated with1939. Ridiculing those with differing opinions and demanding people answer your bizarre questions again. Where have we seen this before…
I asked you a question. Was Chamberlain correct to appease Hitler?
1939 is the appropriate comparison except the existence of nukes makes this probably more serious.
There is a simple equation here. If Putin is given in to, the future of the world is a tragically bleak one, because any tinpot dictator with their eyes on invading anywhere will just make vague threats of nuclear war.
And they will get their way.
The stakes are the same here as they were in 1939.
You and @glasagusban don’t understand that because yis are like lazy toads drunk on western comforts who can’t feel the water boiling them around them.
You still haven’t answered this question.
Is Russia more likely to invade Sweden if
i) Sweden is in NATO
ii) Sweden is not in NATO
“Avoid escalation” is a meaningless buzzphrase. The west has spent 20 years trying to “avoid escalation”.
Here’s what you got wrong.
You think Putin respects “avoiding escalation”.
You think Putin is an honest broker who can be persuaded by “diplomacy”.
Have you been asleep for the last month?
You got everything wrong and you’re still getting everything wrong. What you wrote was absolute shite, like @Tierneevin1979. He had the decency to fuck off at least.
Your position is a moral obscenity.
Yes. I have indeed been consistently right about Putin. I was spot on. On everything. Read back on what I’ve written not just on this thread but for years.
You asked me various questions about Chamberlain. I did in fact answer one. Even though i feel it’s nonsense.
Nukes make this ‘probably’ more serious? Really? Would you like to reflect or are you happy with that as an answer?
Actually, if the stakes are the same as 39 (as you say) then its not more serious. Ok.
So your finally position is, based on your last few responses, ‘Nukes don’t matter, nothing does, this is about right and wrong and Putin (who can fire the nukes) needs to be made an example of…’.
Thanks. I disagree.
You came onto the thread for no other reason than to proclaim you were right, when you were demonstrably an idiot, and then you moan like a bitch when the truth is told to you.
