Forum menu
2 of Davis’s colleagues?
Yeah they were Davis's colleagues as well but the question is were the police hampered by having to ask questions before shooting someone and is that why Raynor's 2 colleagues died?
I think she was serious and its a deliberate ploy to go after the tory law and order tendency.
I am not suprised with Raynor this - another weathervane politician who will say whatever she thinks voters want to hear.
I did say the appointment of ooper meant a sharp shift to the right. This is just a part of that and an attempt to steal the tories clothes on law and order
Yep, I'm sure she was just having a laugh really. Good comedy topic that.
It's another attempt to distance them from Corbyn IMO (or at least to distance from what Corbyn didn't say but the BBC edited the footage to make it look like he did).
Not sure they're convincing anyone with their pro-war 'ang 'em shoot 'em tough talk though. What's next, a fact finding mission to see how Duterte deals with criminals in the Philippines?
You think she might have been serious?
I honestly haven't listened to the podcast that she said it on, just read the report, so I couldn't say whether she was being serious or not TBH. Did she say it in a joking way d'you know? I just thought "yeah, I'm pretty non violent, but if folks come into my surgery throwing their weight around at the receptionists or GPs, I get pretty reactionary pretty quickly...so i get where she's coming from"
Not sure they’re convincing anyone with their pro-war ‘ang ’em shoot ’em tough talk though.
Not massively so far at least, it would appear. Despite all the problems the Tories have created for themselves recently the latest YouGov poll, which was conducted yesterday and the day before, only gives Labour a 4% lead, which is well within the margin of what might be expected midterm.
It would appear that aping the Tories isn't providing huge results for Labour.
It would appear that aping the Tories isn’t providing huge results for Labour.
Doesn't seem to be getting through to many Starmer supporters this one.
What's more with the looming on/off conflict Johnson will zoom ahead, as the double whammy of Partygate dissappears and war talk goes into over drive.
Doesn’t seem to be getting through to many Starmer supporters this one.
Its all part of the Blair myth IMO
His electoral success in many folks minds seems to be that moving the party to the right secured the success. I think this a myth and the further to the right he moved the party the less support he had. The landslide was on a fairly radical manifesto and got support. the support dissipated as the party moved to the right.
Anyone who was labour leader would have won the election for the first Blair victory
I’d agree with all of that apart from the last line TJ. It is VERY easy for a Labour leader to lose an election, even with the wind behind them, there is just so much stacked in the Conservative party’s favour. Many very competent politicians could have still lost that one, even with so much of the population ready for change, and the Conservative administration running out of steam. Which is why I’m still worried about Labour going into an election with Starmer as leader… someone more engaging is needed… being the better option compared to a Conservative PM isn’t enough.
Maybe a Corbyn figure would have had a smaller majority or a Starmer figure but my bet is anyone would have still won.
Right... I'm calling it... Labour will lose their lead in the polls as soon as the first week in March. Starmer (and Lammy and others) have been saying all the right things (much better than Johnson and Truss) as regards Russian expansion and money in the UK connected to Putin... but wavering voters will be reminded (by "Stop The War [no, not that war]" and political commentators of both left and right persuasions) what the choice was when they last voted at a general election... and "don't knows" will go back to saying they'd vote Conservative, and some of the recent support for Labour will go to "don't know". And the "one rule for us, another for them" approach to the pandemic will have been booted into the long grass... even a fine against someone in no10 won't lose Johnson support, if the government can convince most people that it's just old news.
And the “one rule for us, another for them” approach to the pandemic will have been booted into the long grass…
And seeing that the election is years away that grass will be very long by then.
I can't see what Labour can possibly do from this point on.
If they attack the Tories on Brexit or policy, they'll alienate the Red Wallers who have voted for and endorsed those very things
If they embrace Nationalism and hang 'em high rhetoric, they alienate the socially liberal Labour element
If they propose anything near socialism, they'll be branded as Corbyn 2.0
If they carry on as they are, they effectively don't offer anything to anyone.
Short of a genius coming up with ' a new way' we'll be chained to these Tory maniacs forever
The Labour lead will most likely evaporate when the sun comes out in spring. The next general election will be fought on different territory (wasteland) than partygate.
If I were to call it, I think a hung parliament / coalition would be the most likely outcome.
I can’t see what Labour can possibly do from this point on.
Perhaps they should try proposing some policies that (properly) address the ridiculous economic inequality in this country and the effective disenfranchisement of millions of voters who have no say in how they are governed?
Short of a genius coming up with ‘ a new way’ we’ll be chained to these Tory maniacs forever
It doesn't need a new way, it just needs to be honest, authentic, inspiring and courageous. The current Labour leadership are none of these things. They're more scared of the establishment turning against them than the voters or their own members and supporters. In a country where normal people know they're being shafted from all directions, the question they ask of the labour party is 'who's side are you on?', and they're perfectly justified in concluding that it's not theirs.
If they embrace Nationalism and hang ’em high rhetoric, they alienate the socially liberal Labour element
My biggest fear is that Boris triples down on his flag-waving and see's an opportunity for some kind of Fatcha 'Falklands Moment'
I find it impossible to believe that its he's not already musing the idea
It doesn’t need a new way, it just needs to be honest, authentic, inspiring and courageous.
Is this same electorate that gave the 'honest, authentic, inspiring and courageous' Boris Johnson a whopping great majority last time out?
Hows the weather in that alternative universe of yours?
Nah, I don't think there is any need as long as the current Labour leadership us all he has to contend with.
Perhaps they should try proposing some policies that (properly) address the ridiculous economic inequality in this country and the effective disenfranchisement of millions of voters who have no say in how they are governed?
It doesn’t need a new way, it just needs to be honest, authentic, inspiring and courageous.
I think they did all of that ( and costed it) in 2017. The public didn't want it in sufficient numbers to make it happen.
Is this same electorate that gave the ‘honest, authentic, inspiring and courageous’ Boris Johnson a whopping great majority last time out?
Yes, but only because any other Labour leader would've been twenty points ahead, remember?
I think they did all of that ( and costed it) in 2017.
2017 was the highest vote share and absolute number of votes labour have received in decades. Unforntunately it wasn't quite enough (by a few thousand) as a result of the labour right wing who did everything they could to undermine the leadership and ensure defeat. (cue binners with his tinfoil hat picture despite the fact this is on record)
Instead of building on the undeniable positive evidence of how voters responded to those policies, the current leadership rejected it in favour of a strategy of doing next to nothing that might upset the tory press and their establishment supporters. The result unsurprisingly is a tiny poll lead built on sand (which should be 20 points according to those who were critical of Corbyn) and widespread cynicism and scepticism among voters who don't think labour are speaking for them.
2017 was the highest vote share and absolute number of votes labour have received in decades. Unforntunately it wasn’t quite enough (by a few thousand)
Exactly, it wasn't quite enough - and that was against May who nobody really liked
Also 2024 is not 2017 so that time may have passed but I agree with you that it has to be worth another go with a party actually convincing the voters that it could be a fairer society to live in. The problem is trying to get them to believe it as they seem stupid/brainwashed or bit of both to me.
and that was against May who nobody really liked
Who now looks like a titan compared to the current PM. If Corbyn not beating May was bad, what the hell does that say about a leader who can't sustain a poll lead against Johnson?
Not leading the polls against Johnson, I fear is more an indication of the stupidity of the general public, rather than his (kier) personal failings as leader of the opposition.
I fear is more an indication of the stupidity of the general public
Wow. So when Corbyn failed it was entirely his fault for either failing to persuade the voters or not changing his views/policies to suit them. When it's Starmer it's 'the public are stupid'. You don't seen problem with that?
Don't forget...
2017 was the highest vote share and absolute number of votes the Conservative Party had received in decades.
In fact, the only time since the 1980s that the Conservatives had a higher vote share, and more absolute number of votes, was in 2019.
Don’t forget…
2017 was a very polarising election with a stark choice between the two leading parties, which is why both their votes were consolidated. It was also extremely close with only 2% in it in terms of voteshare and even closer in terms of marginal votes that would have flipped the result. Is Starmer consolidating the labour vote as happened in 2017? Or is he bleeding support to the greens and lib dems as a result of not having any policies worth voting for?
Well of course, Corbyn was viewed as too far left for the general voters on the street, he was a bad choice as leader. He'd have been better placed on the shadow cabinet in health and social care or something similar.
The Country isn't ready or willing to go full on socialist. A step in the correct direction is what was needed at the time, and many saw Corbyn as a stretch too far.
The Country isn’t ready or willing to go full on socialist.
I agree. Good job that's not what Corbyn was offering.
Had an interesting conversation with a mate the other day who has 3 kids between the ages of 16 and 20.
He was talking about how lockdown etc had effected their perspectives and went on to say how much more political they seemed than recent generations, then he corrected himself. "Not political but philosophical" he said.
The coming generation aren't galvanised by politics, they have been failed by politics and see the naivety of the faux revolution proposed by traditional leftist platforms. They have become philosophical because they recognise they are emerging into a world that is an alternate reality, warped beyond anything we'd have recognised growing up. Their level of mistrust is absolute and they see no refuge in political parties. They can do the numbers and can see that they are outnumbered.
Whatever zeal Labour managed to muster back in 2017 has faded into the distant past. I can acknowledge that there was indeed an energy back then but it didn't work. It was a last gasp. I voted Labour in hope but was as philosophical then about Labour's chances as the youth of today are now.
many saw Corbyn as a stretch too far.
If he had won there's a strong chance we would be out of NATO and sending peacekeepers to support the two self declared states that Russia has just recognised. All part of his life long campaigning for peace.
If he had won there’s a strong chance we would be out of NATO and sending peacekeepers to support the two self declared states that Russia has just recognised.
Where to start with this? Honestly do you really believe this stuff that's been fed to you via the tory propaganda machine?
Come on Daz... you know full well that Grandad would now be on Russia Today (he'll know his way around their studio, after all), sat at the other end of a very long table from Mad Vlad McMad, denouncing Western Aggression, NATO and the EU and loving every minute of it.
Yeah, what's the matter with you Daz?
Russian troops would probably be stationed in the UK. Any sensible person can see that.
... and a jihadi on every street 😛
Is Starmer consolidating the labour vote as happened in 2017?
Well, first he'd have to make up the 2.6 million votes lost in 2019 before he started consolidating anything.
2.6 million votes lost pretty much due to the party's stance on Brexit.
Morning Star analysis
While Starmer is seen very much as a strong Remainer, he could chuck as many progressive policies as he can cost but it still won't wash in the Red Wall - just as it didn't in 2019 with Corbyn's manifesto.
Maybe the least predictable outcome of Brexit is that while everyone saw Euro-scepticism as a problem in the Tory Party, it has probably led to the death of the Labour Party.
The coming generation aren’t galvanised by politics, they have been failed by politics and see the naivety of the faux revolution proposed by traditional leftist platforms.
What do you mean by 'faux revolution proposed by traditional leftist platforms'?
My 17 year old daughter despises politicians, political parties, and mainstream politics. She loved Corbyn though, because he was the only mainstream political leader willing to break the mould. The only one willing to tell the truth of a system which is designed to work in the interests of a tiny number of people and damn everyone else to a life of drudgery in a collapsing and decaying environment.
What Corbyn was offering wasn't 'faux revolution', it was simple and honest solutions to obvious problems that even a 15 year old (as she was at the time) could see. The tragedy is that the adults who supposedly know better were/are so jaded and cynical they couldn't or were unwilling see what the young could. And as for Starmer, well she doesn't even know or care who he is, so draw whatever conclusions you can from that.
Where to start with this? Honestly do you really believe this stuff that’s been fed to you via the tory propaganda machine?
Would he stay in a NATO as PM?
Is he not a lifelong campaigner for peace?
Do you not watch RT? Do you choose to watch the biased UK MSM when RT is prepared to speak truth to power?
Do you want to ignore Young Labour and their carried motion to leave NATO? Do you want to ignore the young who vote for JC?
Come on Daz… you know full well that Grandad would now be on Russia Today (he’ll know his way around their studio, after all), sat at the other end of a very long table from Mad Vlad McMad, denouncing Western Aggression, NATO and the EU and loving every minute of it.
It's interesting isn't it, that our current Tory Energy & Industrial Strategy Secretary (pretty relevant brief to the Ukraine situation no?) has appeared on RT, never mind that the Tory party coffers are full to the brim with dodgy Russian money, but your focus is once again on slagging off someone who used to be the Labour leader.
Would he stay in a NATO as PM?
I think he almost certainly would have for the simple reason that he's a democrat and would know that the vast majority of the public wouldn't want to leave.
That's a very different issue as to whether we need to be in NATO though. I'm sure as a peace campaigner he and others view NATO not as an instrument of peace, but quite the opposite. As with many 'defence' organisations it seems to exist largely to keep the arms industry in business. Could we do without it? I don't know, but it doesn't seem to be very effective at preventing wars as current events would suggest.
Do you not watch RT?
I've never watched RT in my life. Should I?
Would it be some kind of appealing beardy communist peacenik betrayal to suggest that NATO should stop expanding and/or even go back to what it used to be?
Seems to be one of those things you're not allowed to say because apparently it's not possible to simultaneously realise that Putin is a nasty piece of work and that NATO expansion has been a mistake.
Corbyn doesn't argue that we shouldn't be part of a "defence" organisation, just that we shouldn't be in one that doesn't include Russia on the inside.
suggest that NATO should stop expanding
Why? Why shouldn't any country join that promises peace and mutual defence of all other members? What would be wrong with as many countries as possible being a party to such agreements?
Would it be some kind of appealing beardy communist peacenik betrayal to suggest that NATO should stop expanding and/or even go back to what it used to be?
Last change that advanced east was 2004, 18 years ago.
Only 4 NATO countries border Russia, are you going to throw out Norway?
Corbyn doesn’t argue that we shouldn’t be part of a “defence” organisation, just that we shouldn’t be in one that doesn’t include Russia on the inside.
Does he? Maybe it would work. It's difficult to argue our current strategy has been very successful isn't it.
Last change that advanced east was 2004, 18 years ago.
Guess you must have missed all the talk about Ukraine joining NATO
Ukraine is not a Nato member, but was promised in 2008 that it would eventually be given the opportunity to join, a move that would bring the US-led alliance to Russia’s border. In 2019, an amendment was adopted that enshrined the ultimate goal of Nato membership in the country’s constitution.
NATO expansion has been a mistake.
The question everyone should be asking is why they wanted to expand? Could it have had anything to do with the fact that NATO expects member states to spend a certain percentage of their annual budgets on weapons and other defence supplies from an arms and defence services industry based in NATO states?
Why? Why shouldn’t any country join that promises peace and mutual defence of all other members? What would be wrong with as many countries as possible being a party to such agreements?
Why do people ask obtuse questions?
Does he?
Yes.
And rather than dig up old quotes that could result in "that was back then, what about now"... here's a quote from yesterday's Stop The War update...
...there now needs to be a unified effort to develop pan-European security arrangements which meet the needs of all states, something that should have been done when the Warsaw Pact was wound up at the end of the Cold War. The alternative is endless great power conflict with all the attendant waste of resources and danger of bloodshed and destruction.
Hard to disagree with that. Does Putin agree though? An agreement that meant he couldn't march in and take over regions in other countries, and expand the RF? In return for what? Russia not being invaded by any of the countries already not interested in invading it?
The question everyone should be asking is why they wanted to expand?
Because if Putin (or a successor) pushes the RF borders Eastward.. where does he (or they) stop? It is entirely in the selfish interests of Western European countries to help those in Eastern Europe stay independent from the RF if they want to.
It is entirely in the interest of Western European countries to help those in the East stay independent from the RF if they want to.
You think being part of NATO is 'independent'?
Yes. In that countries can choose to join, or leave, without having tanks outside their parliament buildings making them.
Yes so the military organisation is constantly expanding for defence, got it. I wonder if Putin might make the same argument.
If NATO was invading the Ukraine, in the name of "defence", I'd be in Westminster right now protesting against UK involvement... and I hope millions of others would join me. Allowing new voluntary members is not the same as invading countries to make them (or bits of them) members. Not that NATO has let Ukraine become members anyway.
Guess you must have missed all the talk about Ukraine joining NATO
Which everyone including Putin and contributors on here know is so far away from becoming reality as to be not relevant. Unless you want to use it to justify an anti NATO narrative
The question everyone should be asking is why they wanted to expand? Could it have had anything to do with the fact that NATO expects member states to spend a certain percentage of their annual budgets on weapons and other defence supplies from an arms and defence services industry based in NATO states?
daft bit is that nearly all the countries in NATO have been either below the 2% or have been fiddling the numbers like the UK to make it look like we do.
Could you enlighten on the %of GDP the Russians spend on defence sourced from russian defence services industry?
Could you enlighten on the %of GDP the Russians spend on defence sourced from russian defence services industry?
I've no idea, and don't really care. Why is it relevant?
I heard that Corbyn personally sponsored a Mil Mi-24 helicopter gunship, but only after Vlad promised him he’d only use it to fire flowers
It's all Corbyn's fault again is it.
Jesus Christ.
Once the liberal establishment gets together for a bit of cost no object war (we don't need taxes to fund defence, goes without saying.) then the common enemy must be Corbyn and all the idle Daily Mail shite that goes with it.
A good chunk of you utterly deserve the sinking ship of Johnson and co. Stick with it liberals you lot love a good War.
You have form.
Given how many times the West have bull-shitted up a War excuse you think it likely we're getting the truth this time?
Have we forgotten about Partygate, wallpaper gate, Starmer's arse kicking forensic vote winning PMQS this week?
Nice to see that Russian propaganda has been swallowed hook, line & sinker by certain parties in here.
Also that a simple map has been used to argue that a defensive alliance to contain an expansionist power is being used to justify aggression (see WW1 & 'encirclement')
Nice to see that Russian propaganda has been swallowed
What Russian propaganda? I've honestly not seen any. I've seen a lot of western propaganda on all the news channels though, and that seems to have been swallowed by everyone here. BND even thinks we lefties would invite the russians in with open arms and fight on their side in a war! As delusions go that's one of the more spectacular ones I've seen.
The propaganda that NATO is advancing East to attack Russia.
Give me a clue. For example: Which is most likely
1: Russia might, at some point try to invade Estonia
2: Estonia might, at some point try to invade Russia?
See if you can guess why Estonia joined NATO
It's great isn't it when anyone who advances the idea that it isn't as simple as 'NATO good Russia bad' can be denounced as a deranged commie or useful idiot.
At the risk of repeating myself, Putin is a scumbag. That doesn't make everything NATO does wonderful and blameless though does it.
Only read a couple of his articles but this guy seems to offer a more nuanced perspective.
https://foreignpolicy.com/author/stephen-m-walt/
The propaganda that NATO is advancing East to attack Russia.
Precisely no one has said that.
Putin has. & he is justifying attacking Ukraine because of 'NATO enlargement'
BTW
What has NATO done wrong?
I’ve no idea, and don’t really care. Why is it relevant?
You made it relevant by saying NATO essentially exists to give defence companies a market by virtue of the commitment to spend 2% GDP
BND even thinks we lefties would invite the russians in with open arms and fight on their side in a war!
No I don't. I believe a Corbyn led government would have left NATO and be sending troops to act as "peacekeepers" in Ukraine which in turn would facilitate the carving up of Ukraine by Putin. All the time railing against the aggression from NATO
Right… I’m calling it… Labour will lose their lead in the polls as soon as the first week in March.
Johnson flapping over his parties links to Russia and Starmer looking more grown up on Ukraine seems to be holding it steady so far
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1496549310518988805?t=DXIY1_LrfNNCogpRHZFT6A&s=19
I don't see that sticking. As is often the case... I'd be very pleased to be wrong.
You made it relevant by saying NATO essentially exists to give defence companies a market by virtue of the commitment to spend 2% GDP
What's that got to do with what Russia spends? I couldn't care less what Russia spends, I don't live and pay taxes there.
I believe a Corbyn led government would have left NATO and be sending troops to act as “peacekeepers” in Ukraine
Then you're deluded. At no point in the four years he was leader did Corbyn adopt leaving NATO as a policy. He may have questioned NATO's purpose and usefulness (with good reason as it would turn out), but he never said we would leave if he was PM. That was propaganda invented by tory and some labour opponents to smear him, which you seem to have swallowed without question.
What has NATO done wrong?
Oh you know, maybe the idea of expanding eastwards onto Russian borders might have been an unnecessarily reckless thing to do, upsetting the delicate geo-political east-west balance as many critics said at the time. A more sensible strategy might have been for the buffer states to remain neutral militarily whilst pursuing other ways of 'westernising' if that's what they wanted. Just because eastern european states wanted to join, doesn't mean NATO should have allowed them to.
Putin is a scumbag. That doesn’t make everything NATO does wonderful and blameless though does it.
No it doesn't, but I'm willing to bet more than 2% of dazh's annual budget that the 3 small Baltic states, Romania, and Bulgaria are members though, eh?
But that presupposes that you accept 'spheres of influence' like the good old days of the Cold war. The purpose of those states joining NATO wasn't to Westernise them, that's what the EU is for. It was to prevent them being subject to Russiaan aggression.
Estonia = member of NATO
Ukraine = not member of NATO
Who is in danger of being invaded at the moment?
I accept that Putin is upset by the sight of NATO advancing towards Russia & in part that might be due to his normal despotic paranoid mindset, but in a large part it is because he wants to swallow up those parts of Russia which broke away in the 1990's. If they join NATO he can't do that.
I believe he is trying to reverse the result of the Cold War, I don't think he really believes that NATO is going to invade him (or that Ukraine is going to do so.) You have heard his speech about Ukraine not really being a nation?
What’s that got to do with what Russia spends?
Hmmm, hands up if you think the level of Russian defence spending impacts what NATO member countries spend.....
he never said we would leave if he was PM
Did he ever say he would stay in NATO? The organisation he wants to throw other countries out of...
A more sensible strategy might have been for the buffer states to remain neutral militarily whilst pursuing other ways of ‘westernising’ if that’s what they wanted.
Isn't the westernisation the problem, trying to have working democracies, rule of law, vibrant press, etc etc. How westernised could they get before the tanks rolled.....
Estonia = member of NATO
Ukraine = not member of NATO
Who is in danger of being invaded at the moment?
If we're going to start using this level of argument.
Finland - not member of NATO
Ukraine - officially declared as future member of NATO
Who is in danger of being invaded at the moment?
I accept that Putin is upset by the sight of NATO advancing towards Russia & in part that might be due to his normal despotic paranoid mindset, but in a large part it is because he wants to swallow up those parts of Russia which broke away in the 1990’s.
It's not as simple as that. As I posted before there is a deeply ingrained Russian cultural fear of being invaded from the west, most recently in WWII where they lost 26 million lives. Remember all the people in the UK who think the EU is just the Germans taking over Europe by stealth rather than with tanks this time? Imagine what many people in Russia think about the EU and NATO.
I'm not saying it's justified or correct necessarily but I think it's helpful to understand it in these terms. What we might like to see as perfectly reasonable consolidation is likely seen as an insult/lack of respect/betrayal of agreed boundaries etc etc
officially declared as future member of NATO
Nope, they would like to be but there is no suggestion that they have been accepted.
& also
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-bullying-forces-finland-to-rethink-its-tradition-of-neutrality-5nx23958d
(Russian aggression forces Finland to think about joining NATO)
But you are missing the point. Finland has never been part of Soviet Russia (& was more loosely connected to the Russian Empire before that), Estonia, Ukraine etc have been & have been part of the Warsaw Pact. Those countries who have 'never been real nations' are the ones Putin wants to get back.
Who is in danger of being invaded at the moment?
Maybe not at the moment, but they are worried about it
https://warsawinstitute.org/new-legislation-finland-will-stop-russian-expansion/
It’s not as simple as that. As I posted before there is a deeply ingrained Russian cultural fear of being invaded from the west, most recently in WWII where they lost 26 million lives. Remember all the people in the UK who think the EU is just the Germans taking over Europe by stealth rather than with tanks this time? Imagine what many people in Russia think about the EU and NATO.
I’m not saying it’s justified or correct necessarily but I think it’s helpful to understand it in these terms. What we might like to see as perfectly reasonable consolidation is likely seen as an insult/lack of respect/betrayal of agreed boundaries etc etc
& I think you have to see it in the context of a man who has entrenched himself in power, stifled & imprisoned internal dissent, poisoned opponents in other countries, mounted semi-official cyber attacks on other states etc etc. He is an authoritarian despot trying to win a 'war' his country lost three decades ago. Sorry to Godwinise a thread, but there were lots of reasons why the German's were fearful in the 1930's: making excuses for Hitler's behaviour was quite popular in the UK at that time.
'The West' is by no means perfect, but I think attempting to see an equivalence in Putin's Russia is completely lacking a sense of perspective. Just having a sense of greivance doesn't confer legitimacy.
The US has spent billions of dollars in Ukraine. Why?
The US has spent billions of dollars in Ukraine. Why?
Government or corporates? Property or oil and gas?
Go on tell us
The US has spent billions of dollars in Ukraine. Why?
Hookers?