Search results

£100 billion might end up being a drop in the ocean compared to the long term cost of having to deal with a resurgent Russia in a few years.

A punter is always at liberty to ignore the sensible advice they’ve been given!

That’s a directly connected example, but there are many others. For an organisation that size, that carries such strategic and economic importance to the UK, it’s astonishing how inept the PL is. I expect that is likely to be further underlined this week.

I’ve posited before, and I certainly don’t mind repeating it again, the cunts don’t know what they’re doing.

Not sure why there’s a ? against Forest. They are as nailed on as Villa.

A few have advocated the former (myself included) but has anyone actually suggested the latter as a viable possibility for the foreseeable?

Pretty much my take.

Oaths/affirmations at tribunals are increasingly de rigueur. Assumed they’d be mandatory at an arbitration hearing.

Depends what you define as success.

Every decision NATO has made since February 2022 has contained a level of comparable risk.

I accept the only realistic way for Ukraine to enter NATO would be to surrender claims on lost territory. The prevailing narrative in some is quarters is that they surrender the lost territory and agree not to join NATO. Can’t see that flying in various ways.

Previous guarantees to Ukraine haven’t been worth a wank.

Which is exactly what a bluffer wants you to think,,,

It’ll be fine as long as no one gives them the PIN.

Would the deal you envision involve Russia keeping what it’s stolen and Ukraine staying out of NATO?

He wasn’t very nice to Blondi at the end.

He fucking loves the stuff.

Neigh.

Are you remotely surprised?

Nothing to guarantee it, but there are dozens of scenarios that cannot be excluded from the realms of possibility, however if you allow them to dominate your thinking you’d be crippled by indecision. All anyone can do is play the percentages and my view (fwiw) is the scenario you paint is...