A lady I know

@hippyjoe1955 England's "invasion" of Ireland was in the 17C and led by a Dutch ruler (William of Orange) who came to power in England basically by a coup. The island of Ireland was divided in the early-20C with six counties left as Ulster, inhabited by people of whom the majority wanted to stay British, the rest as the independent Republic of Ireland. The "Troubles" were a fight between Republican and so-called "Loyalist" factions, had a strong religious element, and the British Army went in after serious attacks by protestant "para-military" gangs on a catholic area of Belfast. The "paramilitaries" on both sides, were utterly ruthless, cruel people who would murder anyone in cold-blood.

...

Russia invaded Ukraine, a country recognised as independent by a treaty between Russia, Ukraine, the USA and UK - but that never satisfied Vladimir Putin. It is HIS war entirely, as a former KGB career officer who resents the loss of the USSR. HE is the bully, and a liar and coward even within his own country where all media are strictly controlled and any dissent ruthlessly suppressed on his orders.

The USA had no logical reason to fight the Russian Federation, and is not trying to do so; but once Putin ordered his invasion, some years after having stolen Crimea, what else could the US, UK and most of Europe do but help Ukraine stand up for herself? If Putin wins HIS war, who is next? Moldova? The Baltic States? Finland? Poland? Former USSR countries along the South of Russia?

A small news item recently may have escaped many people's attention. Russia has a brand-new, very Soviet-style, bas-relief statue worshipping Josef Stalin. It seems someone in the Russian Federation's government has suggested to President Putin that the USSR might not have been fully dissolved thanks to a legal technicality... How true that is, perhaps just the opinion of an officer trying to curry favour with Putin, is open to question but we can only hope it is just a matter of the president's vanity.

...

I agree to a point about Israel. What exists now is a modern state carved out of Palestine by the UN (or its League of Nations predecessor) partly perhaps out of guilt for Nazi Germany; but the Arabs were not consulted and their understandable resentment has festered since; encouraging the rise of groups like the PLO and now Hamas.

The Isrealis themselves, or rather, hard-line nationalist factions of them, are their own worst enemies. They must have know how provocative but also pointless and foolish it would be to transfer their capital to Jerusalem (a city holy to all three Abrahmic religions), encouraged by a US President Trump in his first go at the job. And that the steady take-over of Palestinian land by "settlers" is neither ethical nor legal. Yes, I know they claim the land is theirs by Gift of God but anyone can say that, including the Palestinians; and historically their ancestral rights to the region are probably the higher.

I would agree that the hard-liners in Israel have considerable support from the USA (as did the IRA in Ireland), so the the Arabs can be excused for feeling America is against them. I have noticed in radio news interviews that many Israelis as they claim to be, have strong American accents, making me wonder their own backgrounds.

...

The fighting in Yemen was originally a civil war but the Houthis are backed and armed by Iran, a very dangerous nation bolstered partly by religious sectarianism across the region. The USA and UK stepped in to try to defend third-party ships the Houthis decided legitimate targets (imagining any ship approaching the Suez Canal must be helping Israel); but Saudi Arabia and Iran were already involved, using the internal fighting as a proxy scrap between themselves.

.....

The USA is certainly no angel and did spend much of the last half of the Twentieth Century trying to run the world - in dangerous competition with the USSR - but she cannot blamed for all wars, nor be accused wrongly.

In Ireland, she was merely interfering to suit her own (US) politics. Remember it was your own country, Canada, who brokered the eventual peace deal.

Where the USA goes now is anyone's guess, with that competition to be the World's Top Dog now moving to USA v. People's Republic of China.

@ArishMell Russia did not invade Ukraine. The regions in Eastern Ukraine held a binding referendum and voted democratically to join Russia. They had very good reason. The area is populated by ethnic Russians. They speak Russian at home. Ukraine has been shelling them for decades now. So technically Russia did not invade Ukraine since the region it moved into wanted to be Russian. England has a long and storied history of being a bully going back centuries. Ireland is just one example. Remember the boast that the sun never set on the British empire? Well the empire didn't spring into existence because the natives wanted the English to rule them.

@hippyjoe1955 Russia did not invade Ukraine? No - it was a military tattoo with demonstrations of how to shell blocks of flats. If Russia was only trying to help the area it thinks wants to be Russiasn (not that it woukld ever ask) why is it hurling missiles and drones at Liev and Odessa? Why was its first attempt a massive armoured column driving South to Kiev - apparently thinking it would take only a few days to defeat Ukraine and that the Ukrainians would welcome them? Even the Russian troops did not know what was happening until the order to cross the border.

The sun set on the British Empire decades ago, handing over governance to the nations' own people. (Though whether "own people" is always appropriate is another matter when the majority of the population are descendents of settlers). Nor was Britain the only colonial power - so were Spain, France, Portugal and Holland.

Two thousand years ago it were the Romans invading many lands. One thousand years ago The Normans (descendants of Norse settlers in France) invaded England. Less than one hundred years the outcome of the defeat of Hitler's "Third Reich" imperialism was half of Europe becoming seized by the Soviet Empire (though Moscow did not call it that).

Now, as well as Russia's attempt to destroy Ukraine, we have Israel with tacit US support, trying to do something similar to the Palestinians; and the US President demanding your country, Greenland and the Panama Canal..

Russia and China are sniffing round the Arctic too, and for the same reasons as Trump's - control of the seaways likely to open up as the ice thaws, and possible mineral deposits becoming accessible.

Tow wrongs do not make a right but don't slag off Britain alone for its own past.

@ArishMell If you believe what the BBC tells you you would think that Putin is the next Hitler. Sadly the BBC lies a lot! A region of a nation has a right to self determination and the regions east of the Dniper river held a vote and voted to leave Ukraine and join Russia. When Ukraine continued to ask for help Putin did not rush in. Instead he negotiated peace treaties Minsk One and Two which Boris Johnson tore up. Finally it was evident that Ukraine/Nato/USA did not want peace and the people east of the Dniper were being killed by Ukraine so Putin moved in. He tried to frighten Kiev but that didn't work so the Russian Armed Forces moved in to protect the people living there. That you are ignorant of that history tells me all I need to know about your level of understanding of world events.

@hippyjoe1955 I have the impression that you despise the BBC because it gives fact and opinions you don't want spread, instead of only those you do want. I think you would reject even the most demonstrable and corroborated fact right in front of you if it does not match your prejudices.

You might support Putin but the BBC does not paint him as a latter-day Hitler. It reports not only from Ukraine but also from Moscow, saying what Putin says and does; and quoting what he allows Russia's Press and TV to say. Putin seems unafraid to show himself as a tyrant, but must know he is known internationally as a bully and liar, except by the few governments who admire shallow little men like him as rulers.


I do not know if you ever watch or read or listen to any accredited news sources, or only those who suppoprt you opinions.

Do your sources of news or views have correspondents in both Russia and Ukraine?

If unable to enter a particular area do they find trusted contacts there? (This has to happen in Gaza because Israel refuses access to foreign journalists. News organisations have to use trusted local contacts, both Palestinians and visitors such as doctors. It is hard even to question spokespeople for the Israeli government - some are very aggressive and rude, even shouting the interviewer down by loud, non-stop hectoring. They do not realise they are doing their own case a serious dis-service by such behaviour.)

Do they tell you the views of both sides in any conflict, whether a war, a diplomatic problem, a trades-union dispute, a general election or your own country's political-party arguments ?

If they quote a claim, do they say whether the claim can be verified? Do they have a verification department, that for example, traces the sources, or studies videos for location-matching?

If reporting some accusation of failure by, for example, a government department or large company, do they invite that to put its own side? (Many such defendants throw the opportunity away by having "no-one available for comment" - which I do not believe - by giving a meaningless "statement" that does not answer the question, or by outright refusal.)

Do your sources have named correspondents and definite office addresses to identify them? Or are they anonymous "blogs" and web-sites dedicated to single-attitude mutual-support?


Whatever the rights or wrongs of Ukraine's internal politics never warranted Putin invading the country, and doing so in extremely cruel ways.

(A Russian army officer who defected said they were ordered to regard all Ukrainians as legitimate targets, against international law. He defected after being punished for objecting to that order.)

@ArishMell I don't despise the BBC. I simply know that it can not be trusted to give me the time of day. Way back in the day I used to love the BBC World Service. I would listen to it all the time on short wave radio. However those days are long gone. It's long form interviews where it would simply give the mic to both sides of a conflict and allow each side to give its point of view without interruption was top drawer, However those days are long gone. Now it is a shell for the deep state. It's reporting is a joke and not worth even tuning in to. There are much much much better sources of information. Don't get me wrong I am not picking on the BBC. The Canadian and Australian broadcasting systems are the same. Then there is the joke that passes for journalism in the US. Too Funny!!! Well it would be funny except they are all shills for war.

@hippyjoe1955 You may not like the interviewing style of the BBC and others now but that does not make them "shells" for some imaginary "deep state".

@ArishMell I don't like the fact that the BBC is not about informing it is about forming opinion. It presents a very select point of view and not both sides of a discussion. If all you heard was the BBC lauding Adolf Hitler you would be a fan of Hitler. Why? Because your trusted opinion maker told you that Hitler was a good guy and you would be completely surprised to find out otherwise. Much like many who were fans of the USSR back in the 20s and 30s. They were given those thoughts by the opinion formers in the media.