Ukraine- the situation is VERY serious

The words quoted are those of Yakovenko, not mine. And I do believe that was the plan, hence all the interference from so many directions.

GrannyGravy13

Claremont

Photos are re-emerging of Farage with Aleksandr Yakovenko, Russian Ambassador in UK 2011-2019. Mr Yakovenko said 'we have crused the British to the grond and they will not rise for a very long time'.

Anyone who thinks that Brexit was not one of the many steps towards a very deliberate weakening of Europe, to divide and rule, must be very naive.

It is getting clearer by the day that so many events, apparently separate, of the past decade, are all linked and orchestrated to achieve the current scenario.

But Brexit hasn’t divided Europe, the UK left a trading union.

The U.K. is not crushed.

The UK is part of Europe, our armed forces have continued to train alongside EU member countries.

Europe is as strong as it has ever been.

Europe has been very divided- tragically what is happening now will probably bring them together. Many of us strongly believe that Brexit has weakened Europe, and the UK even much more so.

The UK is floating out there, neither clearly part of one, and desperately needing the other - and will have to make a clear choice.

Wasn’t the initial reason for setting up the EU to maintain peace in Europe after WWII? Brexit was imo part of a plan to destabilise Europe.I still question what Cummings did in the time he spent in Russia.So many people and organisations worked towards Brexit eg Cambridge Analytica. Strange that, when it suits people they describe the EU as ‘just a trading partnership’and yet, at other times the accusation is that it had become more than that and it took away our sovereignty and was therefore a valid reason for leaving it.

Claremont

GrannyGravy13

Claremont

Photos are re-emerging of Farage with Aleksandr Yakovenko, Russian Ambassador in UK 2011-2019. Mr Yakovenko said 'we have crused the British to the grond and they will not rise for a very long time'.

Anyone who thinks that Brexit was not one of the many steps towards a very deliberate weakening of Europe, to divide and rule, must be very naive.

It is getting clearer by the day that so many events, apparently separate, of the past decade, are all linked and orchestrated to achieve the current scenario.

But Brexit hasn’t divided Europe, the UK left a trading union.

The U.K. is not crushed.

The UK is part of Europe, our armed forces have continued to train alongside EU member countries.

Europe is as strong as it has ever been.

Europe has been very divided- tragically what is happening now will probably bring them together. Many of us strongly believe that Brexit has weakened Europe, and the UK even much more so.

The UK is floating out there, neither clearly part of one, and desperately needing the other - and will have to make a clear choice.

I sincerely hope so Claremont and agree with MayBee about the initial reasons for setting up the EU.. we are at a very critical point now and need a really strong leadership and cohesion from all the European heads of state..

MayBee70

Wasn’t the initial reason for setting up the EU to maintain peace in Europe after WWII? Brexit was imo part of a plan to destabilise Europe.I still question what Cummings did in the time he spent in Russia.So many people and organisations worked towards Brexit eg Cambridge Analytica. Strange that, when it suits people they describe the EU as ‘just a trading partnership’and yet, at other times the accusation is that it had become more than that and it took away our sovereignty and was therefore a valid reason for leaving it.

It was a trading partnership until the Maastricht agreement.
That changed the whole demographics of our relationship with the EU.

petra

MayBee70

Wasn’t the initial reason for setting up the EU to maintain peace in Europe after WWII? Brexit was imo part of a plan to destabilise Europe.I still question what Cummings did in the time he spent in Russia.So many people and organisations worked towards Brexit eg Cambridge Analytica. Strange that, when it suits people they describe the EU as ‘just a trading partnership’and yet, at other times the accusation is that it had become more than that and it took away our sovereignty and was therefore a valid reason for leaving it.

It was a trading partnership until the Maastricht agreement.
That changed the whole demographics of our relationship with the EU.

Exactly petra

I had no problems with the trading agreement, Maastricht however, should never of happened without asking the country.

Wan’t Maastricht the result of inept negotiations by the Conservative government ( Conservative governments supposedly being far better at handling the economy than Labour) under John Major and was only partly supported by Labour at the time?

It was a trading partnership until the Maastricht agreement.
That changed the whole demographics of our relationship with the EU.

I don't think that 'demographics' is quite the word you were looking for, Petra. Demographics concerns the make up of a population, which, of course, remained quite unaffected by Maastricht. Perhaps 'dynamics' would be ore apt.

There was always a political element to the EU, as part of the original purpose of it was to counter the rise of authoritarian, undemocratic, governments such as those which precipitated WW2. Which is why Orban is such a problem for the EU at the moment. It has always been as much a peace project as a trading arrangement.

Any serious historian of Europe will tell you this (as opposed to authoritarian demagogues)

BBC reports

"Russia says no role for Europe in Ukraine peace talks, as European leaders meet in Paris"

Says it all, doesn't it, as to how the US and Russia have cooked up the situation between them?

It is like the U.K. and Germany carving up Africa.

I am surprised to read that Russia is also in Africa. Wwm2. Why I don’t know!

Both Russia and China.. The world is being bought up by the 3 superpowers..

Wyllow3

BBC reports

"Russia says no role for Europe in Ukraine peace talks, as European leaders meet in Paris"

Says it all, doesn't it, as to how the US and Russia have cooked up the situation between them?

Not surprising really. Putin wants Ukraine to be part of the USSR and won't accept that Europe should be involved.
His main aim has been to regain the USSR.

Whitewavemark2

It is like the U.K. and Germany carving up Africa.

France. Belgium and Italy too

AGAA4

Wyllow3

BBC reports

"Russia says no role for Europe in Ukraine peace talks, as European leaders meet in Paris"

Says it all, doesn't it, as to how the US and Russia have cooked up the situation between them?

Not surprising really. Putin wants Ukraine to be part of the USSR and won't accept that Europe should be involved.
His main aim has been to regain the USSR.

There will be need for a peace keeping troops, maybe UN may be an independant country, India, Brazil or similar.

If Ukraine is not going to be a NATO member why would Putin allow NATO troops in Ukraine.

On the BBC it states that today’s meeting is to establish relations between the US and Russia. It is unlikely they will get into Ukraine today.

”If Ukraine is not going to be a NATO member why would Putin allow NATO troops in Ukraine”

David I repeat the question I asked you earlier on this thread, what has it got to do with Putin who sets foot on the sovereign soil of Ukraine?

How can Putin allow / not allow troops into Ukraine? As long as they don’t touch Russian soil, it’s got nothing to do with him.

I agree- Putin has no control over NATO, and therefore fears it.
Putin does not understand collaborative agencies who also respect the sovereignty of individual states. He, like Trump, only sees the world in terms of one powerful agent against another. This has always been the Russian way.

Putin thought he could march into Ukraine and take Kyiv in a few days. He was very wrong but he still has to save face by keeping the Ukrainian territorities he has already gained.

Meanwhile can Ukraine hand over its taken territory to Russia? The fear is it will not appease Putin, who will only lick his supposed wounds before planning some other tactic to take Ukraine back?

Putin is a monster the west cannot trust at all.

From Putin’s point of view the west is equally untrustworthy keepingquiet. My DH seems to think at the end of the Cold War, Russia had shown some willingness to take a more conciliatory approach to the West and the USA rebuffed the initiative. It wanted to keep its profitable arms industry in business. I am unsure quite how to respond to this.

Who cares about Putin's point of view? He gets other people to push people out of hotel windows, he murders British citizens on British soil, he imprisons his own people for speaking out against him, and he invades a country a couple of days after he said he wouldn't?

Why would you trust him? Unless you were frightened of him...

In September, 1938, four Leaders of powerful nations met in Munich, Germany, to sign an agreement concerning a smaller, Central European country. That country was Czechoslovakia, which had not been invited to the meeting, and where it was 'agreed' that she would have to cede a significant part of her territory, the Sudetenland, to a Dictator.
The Czechs never forgave the West, and the rest is history.
Eighty-Seven years later, in February 2025, two Leaders of powerful nations are discussing an agreement concerning a smaller, East-European country. That country is Ukraine, which is unlikely to be allowed any meaningful involvement in an 'agreement' which will require her to cede a significant part of her territory to a Dictator.
The Ukrainians will never forgive us if we allow this, and we should never forgive ourselves.
Don't be in any doubt as to what is happening here...
Picture: (Left to Right), Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler, Mussolini, and Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Galeazzo Ciano, pictured before signing the Munich Agreement on September 30, 1938.

This is a FB link of John Major giving an analysis of how dangerous the situation is, and how both Trump and Putin, want a weaker, divided Europe.

fb.watch/xP66jTWKS2/

Thanks Claremont

LizzieDrip

^”If Ukraine is not going to be a NATO member why would Putin allow NATO troops in Ukraine”^

David I repeat the question I asked you earlier on this thread, what has it got to do with Putin who sets foot on the sovereign soil of Ukraine?

How can Putin allow / not allow troops into Ukraine? As long as they don’t touch Russian soil, it’s got nothing to do with him.

Putin is in Ukraine and intends to stay there unless the war is escalated to throw him out.

That is the current position, and they are still fighting to hold those positions Ukraine and Russia are loosing lives as we write.

We have 2 choices throw our full weight behind Ukraine, the US has already stated there will be no US troops involved. So it’s up to European countries to agree what to do.

OR

Accept Russia has won and end the fighting now getting the best deal we can, he keeps what he has won.

I don’t believe Europeans will try to escalate the war without the US backing them up, we simply don’t have the weapons stockpiles

David49 I find myself agreeing with you on this.