IMHAL

Stalin, Lenin and Mao are the dictators that murdered the most people. Hence they are more likely to continue doing so. The worst bit is that they murdered their own people, like killing their own familly, so those nations are an even greater risk to the world as the regimes are essentially unchanged. Makes perfect sense.

It seems that from time to time an individual emerges that disrupts the accepted norms that keep peace. When that happens you either change your mind set or be subjugated. I am sure that the military brains always have this this scenario in mind. It's the population and politicians that need bringing up to speed.

I'm sure he'd really love to but only on the basis that there would be no substantive and propotionate retaliatory response from the West. I believe that it was made clear that there would be a military response so probably not. I'm not qualified in these matters but it seems that this is a hard red line that Putin dare not cross. Having said that, it is more likely that Putin would use one because he is scared of losing control within Russia than for any external factor because at the end of the day the greater risk to his life is from within his inner circle.

Easy to see in hindsight. The signs were there for sure. Appeasement was there. Russian money and bribes encouraged those with influence to look the other way or even benefitting from Russian money and meddling. Russias move to a dictatorship and eradication of all opposition be it political or media. Putin's speeches made it clear what he wanted to do. It was all there. It is clear that we were complacent. Too cosy and comfortable and willing to look the other way. That has all changed, sadly late in the day.

No - it's fact that Russia hacked the files and leaked them to favour Trump. That is what has been proven. It's a matter of record. All you did was point to some speculative guff that says that Clinton tried to dig dirt on Trump. Whooppeeedooo - they all do that, it's part and parcel of their style of politics. Dems do it. Republicans do. They all do. It's not relevant!

This is where I think you are confused. It is fairly normal for both parties to try to 'dig up dirt' on the other party and even to leak it. Trump and the Republicans threw tons of speculative dirt out there on the Democrats, they leaked true or not, they didn't care, mostly total BS and total lies. That is internal politics for you and seems to be acceped in the US more so than here. The issue at hand here is Russian's doing this to influence an outcome. It was proven beyond that they did. That is the issue. So don't be so easilly confused.

The investigation looked at two things 1: Did the Russians hack the system and leak to smear the democrats: YES. 2: Could they prove that Trumps organisation was involved: NO The important bit is that Russia was proven to have interfered and Trump was the benefitiary. Mueller and Comey both got strong armed out of the investigation by Trump. Not so strange when you have something to hide.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of Russian interference in July 2016, including a special focus on links between Trump associates and Russian officials and suspected coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Russian attempts to interfere in the election were first disclosed publicly by members of the United States Congress in September 2016, confirmed by US intelligence agencies in October 2016, and further detailed by the Director of National Intelligence office in January 2017. The dismissal of James Comey, the FBI director, by President Trump in May 2017, was partly because of Comey's investigation of the Russian interference. The FBI's work was taken over in May 2017 by former FBI director Robert Mueller, who led a Special Counsel investigation until March 2019.[5] Mueller concluded that Russian interference was "sweeping and systematic" and "violated U.S. criminal law", and he indicted twenty-six Russian citizens and three Russian organizations. The investigation also led to indictments and convictions of Trump campaign officials and associated Americans, on unrelated charges. The Special Counsel's report, made public in April 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that, though the Trump campaign welcomed the Russian activities and expected to benefit from them, there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates. Me: All this despite Trump trying to stymi a transparent investigation. Trump is a crook and a thug and most worrying is that he went into bed with a foe that wants to destroy his country. It is treasonous.

Ahh..I see. So the largest hacking on government files and the leaking of documents on Hillary Clinton was not Russias doing to smear the democrats then? I beg to differ and call you out for BS. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections Putin wanted Trump in office. Trump loved Putin. Trump wanted to dismantle NATO FFS. Putin's wet dream and a green light to do what the hell he wanted. It must all be a coincidence. Take your blinkers off pal. Putin is at war with the West. Fact. Putin invaded Ukraine. Fact. Putin has been signalling his intentions for the last decade at least. Fact.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Why not make your point less cryptic...spell it out Mr Wang.

Also worth watching on youtube PBS Putin: the road to war. Trump is described as a wrecking ball by Russians...a wrecking ball to his own country and to international alliances. The Russian orchestrated meddling in the 2016 elections did not go as planned....they exceeded all Russias expectations when Trump was elected. They rejoiced, describing Trump as a naive simpleton with an ego, easy to manipulate with a few simple complements. Happy to take Putin's word hook line and sinker. Democracies achillies heel, stupid people and stupid populist leaders.

Get over yourself. The Ukraine war is about Putin. One man's ambition, insecurities and need to be seen as relevant rolled into one. China's roll in this conflict is to an extent passive, a passive but not dissinterested or impartial observer that's eyeing an opportunity come win or lose for Russia. That does not make China an honest broker in any way shape or form. There was no serious attempt to dissuade or broker talks. You are living in lala land.

But whatabout the Iguhurs or Tianaman square or HongKong.... Get yourself a shrink as you excuse genocide of one people on Chinese turf and go on to excuse genocide in Ukraine. You have no moral high ground at all.

No, you don't really 'negotiate' with terrorists. I'd arm myself to the teeth and only then 'negotiate'. The 'negotiation' would look like this. You set foot on my territory and I'll blow you to smithereens, or words to that effect. Negotiations would look more like a 'clear understanding'.

That sums it up. Putin is a man that will take by force that which is not protected. Hence, negotiations without a military deterant are useless against Putin.

You make your points well and I agree with everything you have said. It comes down to framing the debate in a way so that the actual and substantial issues can be discussed rather than point scoring. Absolutely agree. Trump, Farage, Bolsanaro are exactley the type of divisive men Putin wants in charge. All of them have divided their own nations (the achillies heel of democracy) and all of them have been destructive with regard to international cooperation. The type of international cooperation necessary to resist Putin's aggression. It's a clear strategy from Russia and Brexit played it's role in this geopolitical game of chess. There can be no doubt that it was divisive in the UK and it created tensions with our partners in the EU. Thankfully these tensions seem not to have seriously damaged our collective response. I agree - when not framed as cheap point scoring, which gets us no where and is in itself divisive, especially amongst those that are united in their abhorance at Putin's actions.

I agree with that observation. However, IMHO @Riedquat point stands in light of the fact that there is a greater foe to contend with at present, even if the two issues are connected. The fact is, Brexit has happened and using it to point score against those who obviously oppose Putin on this thread plays directly into Putin's hands and his aim of disunity, however true or false the point being made is. It should be water under the bridge as far as this discussion goes, to be address on another thread or at a different time, but addressed it must be, just not in this context.

Great programme on PBS Freesat 155 on Putin. Shown again at 5pm. Tells you all about the Russia kelptocratic system, how it emerged out of Yeltsin presidency and how Putin got into power and 'changed' the system ie made theft by the state systematic. Quite stagering the scale and depth of corruption displayed. No wonder Ukraine was corrupted so throughouly under their rule. You can't get along in Russia or under Russian control unless you are paying bribes for protection that make their way to Putin. There is no doubt that Russia is a country that is highly disfunctional and corrupt to the core. It's makes any anomaly in the West pale into insignificance, a parking transgression compared to the Brinks Matt robbery.

Who is the report for, what is it mean to inform and what decisions will be based on it? You probably can't be too specific but the gist will be sufficient. Overall much more balanced than the usual fair. My take on this is that much needs to change to ameliorate the negative aspects that Brexit has resulted in. I also can't quite see how we can fully do so, and the portion we can address, we can't do without a wholesale change in the way we do things, something that I don't see happening, possibly because much will be resisted by the population (political will?) or the resources needed are just not available. Pardon me for being a bit forward here, but I think your report should be revised to say 'Underperforming and forecast to continue underperforming'.

To be clear if the Uk's absolute growth is within a smidge of France then I would agree that would in my eyes be a wrong. As for would it be done for political reasons? I don't see any credible reasons for it to be politicised. Do you?

It's a forecast based on a set of current know facts and assumptions about the drivers of the economy in 2023. It also depends on what you mean by 'wrong'. It could be that globally growth is stronger than expected which would boost all countries growth (not by much I expect). In which case the UK might not shrink as much as expected but it would still be as relatively weak compared to the conparison countries. Would that make it wrong? For me the definition of wrong would be a significant positive change in growth of the UK in comparison to those listed countries in absolute relative terms. By significant I mean more than 25% change in absolute relative terms. eg if the USA is forcast to grow by 4% and it grows by 5% then if it turns out that the UK grows by 0.4% from it's forecast -0.6%, that does not equate to it being wrong as the relative lack of growth of the UK has been maintained. But in this case if the Uk grows significantly more I would probably call that 'wrong'. In any case, I'm sure that the IMF have put +/- errors in their forecasts if you care to check. What do you define as wrong?

I can sympathise with the first bit. I also find the financialisation of housing wrong on many levels. Bad policy laced with greed is all. If they stuck to 2.5x single and 3.5x dual earning then housing would not be so expensive. The rest is pure hyperbole. Everyone goes through their 'I found Buddha moment', you are going through one now with your 'I love China' thing. Don't worry, you will soon come back to reality.

Apart from the possibility that Russia was influencing Uk politics by washing it's dirty money - tell us what you think the significance is.

As if by magic. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64452995 IMF: UK to be the only major economy expected to shrink in 2023 Must be the pandemic err...I mean the war...err leaves on the track? Whatever it is, it CANNOT be Brexit....oh no siree.

And...that begs the question as to why. Lots on here have cited 'they are taking our jobs' to school places, taking up space in the NHS even resentment at the Polish isle at Tescos would you believe etc. Yet here we are with less tax revenue to pay for the services we need. And less people to do the jobs that need doing which we are apparently not willing or able to fill. That does not look like a win to me. Personally I think there are bigger fish to fry at the moment than lock horn with those who don't see the self inflicted harm Brexit has done. Those type are free to gloat all they like about 52-48 but the noises and creaks and strains are staring to tell and people are asking questions, which is exactley what they should be doing, scrutinising our decisions.