Just an observation worth making, nobody else seems to make this quite simplistic point.

Russia is the largest land nation in the world, yet it also has a massively declining birth rate too, as well as Putin managing to kill off many of the nation's youth these past three years too. So why be even more expansionist?

With talk about further invasions by John Major yesterday, people cite the Baltic states and Poland, never mind Ukraine itself, why does the largest nation by land mass feel the need to grab ever more territory anyway?

Is the Polish threat even real or exaggerated? If they went there we'd be in a mirror image of WWII kicking off.

Meanwhile Starmer now talks of committing UK troops to Ukraine, something even Zelensky's best mate Boris would have surely recoiled from.

Before WW3 kicks off, can Trump tell Putin to ban using animals at circuses? At least give animals a chance to survive.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1438114...0O71JGFGRhr03brJJkXA

It's pretty obvious:

The US wants Ukraine's valuable mineral resources as does Russia.
Trump has already told Ukraine. Whatever deal he's made with Putin is unknown.

Just as Trump and Israel want the 100s of $Billions in oil and gas reserves off the Gaza coast.

It's always about the money. Always has been.

Putin though may have fantasies about re=creating the USSR.

Just as Trump wants his own empire with Canada, Greenland and who knows what ally he picks on next.

And of course, both Canada and Greenland are mineral rich.

Fortunately neither will look south, yet, to say Australia as it's already and always has been, owned by foreigners.

Rich wrote:
Just an observation worth making, nobody else seems to make this quite simplistic point.

Russia is the largest land nation in the world, yet it also has a massively declining birth rate too, as well as Putin managing to kill off many of the nation's youth these past three years too. So why be even more expansionist?
Inferiority complex?

But a desire to grab natural resources sounds a likely reason.

Bill Browder says (e.g. in interviews on YouTube) that the war is Putin's way of staying in power and if he stops he risks jail and death.

www.npr.org/2026/01/01/1262114324/zz-1a-browder

www.bbc.com/audio/play/p0k8phys

I hope I live to see Vladimir Kara-Murza in a democratic Russian administration. He seems exceptionally intelligent and sensible.

I agree with Hedda and most of the above. But for me it seems the question is what is the alternative? Doubling down on missile strikes against a Nation which is equipped with thousands of nukes and which has promised to use them if they feel their survival is ever at direct threat. Trump has at least brought forward a plan of peace and got the rest of Europe moving toward that goal. Previously Zelensky was asking for bigger and bigger missiles. Biden was prepared to escalate the offence. Peace under Biden was as far away as ever, and likewise in Gaza, under Biden the war escalated and spread to involve neighbouring regions and Israel intensely provoked Iran. I cannot see how Trump's actions are bringing us closer to WW3 than under Biden. Who was it who said keep your friends close keep your enemies closer? Wise words.

Which is better, an unjust peace or a just war?

Rich wrote:
Which is better, an unjust peace or a just war?

Unlike WW2..it's a different kettle of eels now. The Doomsday Clock has never been so close to Midnight. Peace. But on terms. I do doubt that Putin would invade Poland. It would be madness and he's not made a great job of Ukraine. Compromises however are always key to any peaceful outcome.

Downing Street Cat wrote:
Rich wrote:
Which is better, an unjust peace or a just war?

Unlike WW2..it's a different kettle of eels now. The Doomsday Clock has never been so close to Midnight. Peace. But on terms. I do doubt that Putin would invade Poland. It would be madness and he's not made a great job of Ukraine. Compromises however are always key to any peaceful outcome.
But Trump could cut a deal that allows Russia time, space and money (e.g. if the US fails to commit to defending Ukraine and removes sanctions) to rearm and try Ukraine again and/or another country. From Trump's latest comments (Trump says Ukraine could have made a deal earlier, I don't think he's interested in long-term stability, just in claiming kudos for cutting a deal.

William Hague: 'Huge danger' Trump's deal could lead to a wider war

What is it with crappy politicians doing podcasts? Hague failed as leader of the Tories.

When he was young he was still old as the hills.

Hague was Foreign Secretary. Judging from books he's written, he's definitely not stupid.

If the Russian state media is purring away happily at events then that tells you that what Trump is doing is clearly not in the Western national interest, surely?

Interesting tweet from John Simpson asking what Boris Johnson & Liz Truss, two big Trump fans are now thinking about him and his Ukriane policy now he's making bad vibes about Zelensky. He's saying Zelensky is now unpopular in Ukraine with a 4% approval rating which is clearly total nonsense.

Does Trump consider Zelensky and Ukraine an ally or not? Someone from the press needs to ask that simple question now. Putin is a sly and cunning murdering bastard and we don't need him thinkiing the President of the United States and leader of the free world is a useful idiot to his longer term wider aims.

Jo wrote:
Hague was Foreign Secretary. Judging from books he's written, he's definitely not stupid.

He has found his niche in other words. I do wonder if Hague and Mark Thatcher are half-brothers.

Jo wrote:
Rich wrote:
Just an observation worth making, nobody else seems to make this quite simplistic point.

Russia is the largest land nation in the world, yet it also has a massively declining birth rate too, as well as Putin managing to kill off many of the nation's youth these past three years too. So why be even more expansionist?
Inferiority complex?

But a desire to grab natural resources sounds a likely reason.

Bill Browder says (e.g. in interviews on YouTube) that the war is Putin's way of staying in power and if he stops he risks jail and death.

www.npr.org/2026/01/01/1262114324/zz-1a-browder

www.bbc.com/audio/play/p0k8phys

I hope I live to see Vladimir Kara-Murza in a democratic Russian administration. He seems exceptionally intelligent and sensible.

That's interesting re Putin staying in power via war. But is there an Opposition? Perhaps a "Praetorian Guard" who took out so many Roman emperors.

Will the Russian Oligarchs, ordered by Putin to stay out of politics decide Putin risks bankrupting Russia?.

But this is also a resources grab as basically every war in history has been.
And Trump has demanded half of Ukraine's resources as well.

Fun fact 1: The Ukraine Parliament, all opposition parties and the Opposition leader voted to suspend 2014 elections until the war is over.

Fun fact 2: British WW2 Prime Minister Winston Churchill & the UK parliament suspended elections from 1940 to 1945, roughly 4 years longer than Ukraine.

Green Man wrote:
Jo wrote:
Hague was Foreign Secretary. Judging from books he's written, he's definitely not stupid.

He has found his niche in other words. I do wonder if Hague and Mark Thatcher are half-brothers.









William Hague looks more like Mrs Thatcher's son there than her real son Mark ever did.


I do find it a bit indecent of the Trump administration going on pressuring Ukraine about signing mineral wealth deals at the present time when the damned country is at war trying to fend off an aggressor intent on snuffing out the entire place and it's sovereignty.

He even has the same tone of voice as Maggie.

Hague thought he was probably a child prodigy like John von Neumann. Hague managed to look like Mike Love in his younger days then morphed into Bruce Willis without the famous stutter.

In the excellent biography of Putin I read (can't remember the author) it claimed he is a great fan of Imperial Russia but also grieved over the collapse of the USSR.

However his rise through the ranks as the USSR was collapsing gave him extraordinary opportunities to make a fortune via corruption so that by the time he was Mayor of Moscow he was very wealthy. He's estimated to be worth $100B now.

Is he at risk of the Russian Oligarchs though?. Can't remember which UK politician said it but there is apparently $2.5Billion of Roman Abramovich's frozen in a UK bank and said MP said it should be sent to Ukraine.

However if President Musk and his offsider PM Trump pull off the Ukraine deal and get it's wealth while handing over Ukraine land to Russia (knowing he'll take the rest probably in about 5 years) will the Oligarch funds be unfrozen?

hedda wrote:
In the excellent biography of Putin I read (can't remember the author) it claimed he is a great fan of Imperial Russia but also grieved over the collapse of the USSR.

However his rise through the ranks as the USSR was collapsing gave him extraordinary opportunities to make a fortune via corruption so that by the time he was Mayor of Moscow he was very wealthy. He's estimated to be worth $100B now.




I'm not aware that Putin has ever been the Mayor of Moscow, and checking suggests he never has been.