Funds Insider - Opening the door to funds

Welcome to the Citywire Funds Insider Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error
Info on investing based on politics and culture?
+ Reply to discussion
Options
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 09 March 2025 12:36:27(UTC)
#33

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,151

Thanks: 11396 times
Was thanked: 18302 time(s) in 6003 post(s)
ben ski;336782 wrote:

There's no evidence Putin has any intention of invading a NATO member country. In his own words it would mean instant annihilation.

So why do you believe that?


Well firstly Russia's specific demands that the Baltic (and other ex-Soviet) States renounce NATO membership in order to weaken them. This was wrapped up in the Russian Ultimatum of late 2021 that preceeded the war.

https://en.wikipedia.org...ssian_ultimatum_to_NATO

The Ultimatum was rejected on 26th January 2022 and Putin went to war four weeks later, on the basis of that ultimatum being rejected.

The Ultimatum represents a direct threat against those NATO countries and the threat of hostility if they failed to comply.

Is that direct, documented and official threat sufficient evidence?

But do you actually believe that if Russia invaded, say, Lithuania, that any NATO country would respond with a nuclear strike on Russia? Which country do you specifically think would do that....?

The answer, of course, is none of them. Because no country is prepared to accept the retaliation for the sake of the Baltic States.

So claims of "we won't do that because it will mean annhilation" is just a strawman. The Russian's and NATO both know that a conventional invasion of such states will asolutely not be met with a NATO Nuclear Strike.

ben ski;336877 wrote:


The war's proven that Russia doesn't have the military or economy to start invading Nato members. And it's far from clear they have any real intentions – that we haven't invented to justify a proxy war.

Is it worth sacrificing endless Russian and Ukrainian citizens, and risking escalation to a global conflict or nuclear attack, on the basis that we think Russia needs to be punished more?


You sound more like Chamberlain at Munich every post.

It's ok Herr Hitler is satisfied with taking a chunck of Czeckslovakia. And it was partly their fault anyway.

There is no evidence he wants any more than that.

War is expensive, we don't really care about the Czechs anyway. It's a long way away.

Quote:


I don't think either side is good in this – but Russia has the stronger hand, and the west's certainly got the sketchier reputation when it comes to invading foreign countries on questionable grounds.


It's not the West vs Russia.

It's Ukraine vs Russia.

And they are fighting for their very lives and existence to avoid becoming a slave colony run by the FSB.

Ukraine hasn't invaded any other countries, ever. Pointing at the West's record on that is irrelevent to their struggle. Just another strawman.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
4 users thanked ANDREW FOSTER for this post.
SF100 on 09/03/2025(UTC), Sheerman on 09/03/2025(UTC), Jay P on 09/03/2025(UTC), Andrew59 on 09/03/2025(UTC)
Robin B
Posted: 09 March 2025 12:45:14(UTC)
#56

Joined: 01/04/2024(UTC)
Posts: 1,546
Waiting for Andrew to sign up and fight for the cause he so passionately believes in...
Back to top Quote
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 09 March 2025 12:54:36(UTC)
#57

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,151

Thanks: 11396 times
Was thanked: 18302 time(s) in 6003 post(s)
Robin B;336992 wrote:
Waiting for Andrew to sign up and fight for the cause he so passionately believes in...



Here is a question for you...

What would be your 'red line' in order for you to support UK sending troops to fight Russia...?

What would have to happen? There must be some point....
Back to top Quote
ben ski
Posted: 09 March 2025 23:33:13(UTC)
#34

Joined: 15/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,381
ANDREW FOSTER;336989 wrote:

It's not the West vs Russia.

It's Ukraine vs Russia.


If it were Ukraine vs Russia, it would've been over in 2 days.

You know this. Even the BBC discusses the proxy war. Ukraine is no less corrupt a regime than Russia's, and it's Ukraine that has the Nazi problem.

You then talk about Ukraine hasn't invaded anyone, and NATO won't nuke Russia, while claiming I'm inventing strawman arguments. I don't know how your brain twists itself into making sense of your own writing, but again: Russia hasn't the intention or capability to start invading NATO members. The risk of a global conflict (which we'd be significantly closer to if there were UK troops involved) and nuclear escalation isn't worth it. This is not our battle.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
Robin B
Posted: 10 March 2025 09:01:39(UTC)
#58

Joined: 01/04/2024(UTC)
Posts: 1,546
Dominic Cummings's latest blog post is well worth a read - particularly on Ukraine, but also the NPC desire to rejoin the EU, and general Whitehall failure.

https://dominiccummings.substack...deas-machines-x-freedoms

This is the sort of analysis that people ought to read if they want to really understand politics. A realist analysis by somebody who has been heavily involved in the system for years. This is somebody who is identifying the patterns and trends.
Back to top Quote
2 users thanked Robin B for this post.
Dunno on 10/03/2025(UTC), Peter61 on 10/03/2025(UTC)
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 10 March 2025 09:43:17(UTC)
#35

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,151

Thanks: 11396 times
Was thanked: 18302 time(s) in 6003 post(s)
ben ski;337038 wrote:
ANDREW FOSTER;336989 wrote:

It's not the West vs Russia.

It's Ukraine vs Russia.


If it were Ukraine vs Russia, it would've been over in 2 days.

You know this. Even the BBC discusses the proxy war. Ukraine is no less corrupt a regime than Russia's, and it's Ukraine that has the Nazi problem.

You then talk about Ukraine hasn't invaded anyone, and NATO won't nuke Russia, while claiming I'm inventing strawman arguments. I don't know how your brain twists itself into making sense of your own writing, but again: Russia hasn't the intention or capability to start invading NATO members.The risk of a global conflict [..] and nuclear escalation isn't worth it. This is not our battle.


If Russia has not the intention or capability to invade NATO members then there is no risk of Global Conflict is there?

And your fears of that are thus unfounded. You simply contradict yourself.

But just answer this question..

If Russia invaded the Baltic states, do you believe NATO would:
a) Go to war
b) Use nuclear weapons

Just simple answers if you please.

I showed you Russia's Ultimatum of 2021. It's there in black and white. It lays out their demands, but you say they have 'no intentions' of backing that up. Despite the actual words in front of your eyes. (Assuming that you actually read it). Did you think they were bluffing? Do you think those demands have disappeared?

You are in denial because you don't like the idea that Europe and the UK face the biggest threat since WW2. So you pretend the threat isn't there because you don't want it to be. Just like Chamberlain did.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
Dunno
Posted: 10 March 2025 11:58:00(UTC)
#59

Joined: 09/04/2024(UTC)
Posts: 67

Thanks: 62 times
Was thanked: 96 time(s) in 51 post(s)
Robin B;337054 wrote:
Dominic Cummings's latest blog post is well worth a read - particularly on Ukraine, but also the NPC desire to rejoin the EU, and general Whitehall failure.

https://dominiccummings.substack...deas-machines-x-freedoms

This is the sort of analysis that people ought to read if they want to really understand politics. A realist analysis by somebody who has been heavily involved in the system for years. This is somebody who is identifying the patterns and trends.


That was a very thought provoking read thanks
Back to top Quote
1 user thanked Dunno for this post.
Robin B on 10/03/2025(UTC)
ben ski
Posted: 10 March 2025 19:40:55(UTC)
#36

Joined: 15/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,381
ANDREW FOSTER;337058 wrote:

If Russia has not the intention or capability to invade NATO members then there is no risk of Global Conflict is there?

And your fears of that are thus unfounded. You simply contradict yourself.


I'll have to stop you here.

The two real risks are: 'chain-ganging' – where other countries are pulled into the conflict, one by one – which is how WW1 began ... Now we've already got N.Korean and Iranian troops in Ukraine – if British troops enter the scene, we'll arguably be in a world war.

Nuclear escalation if Russian sovereignty is threatened. And Europe doesn't have a plan. There's no good reason to let the war run when negotiation is the only decent outcome.
Back to top Quote
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 10 March 2025 21:17:04(UTC)
#37

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,151

Thanks: 11396 times
Was thanked: 18302 time(s) in 6003 post(s)
ben ski;337124 wrote:
ANDREW FOSTER;337058 wrote:

If Russia has not the intention or capability to invade NATO members then there is no risk of Global Conflict is there?

And your fears of that are thus unfounded. You simply contradict yourself.


I'll have to stop you here.

The two real risks are: 'chain-ganging' – where other countries are pulled into the conflict, one by one – which is how WW1 began ... Now we've already got N.Korean and Iranian troops in Ukraine – if British troops enter the scene, we'll arguably be in a world war.

Nuclear escalation if Russian sovereignty is threatened. And Europe doesn't have a plan. There's no good reason to let the war run when negotiation is the only decent outcome.



But you say there is no intention or capability. So I can only repeat, according to you there is no risk of that happening. The Baltic States aren't going to invade Russia so just how can it happen as you describe?

NATO isn't threatening Russian sovereignty. NATO aren't ever going to invade Russia. Just defend Ukraine.
Ukraine isn't Russian territory. So it's nonsense again.

You also ignore the critical point that Russia does not keep to agreements and will just go again I'm a couple of years. Nothing they sign is worth the paper it's written on. To think they will honour anything is delusional as well as convenient can kicking.

You are just not thinking it through.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
6 Pages«Previous page456
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets