The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives [3] 
  
User: Guest

Home / News  % width   posts: 516

Is NORD STREAM dangerous for Poland's natural enviroment?


Marrakesh
2 Sep 2024   #511
Why my wish, darling???

Because you complained that the Germans won't stop doing business with you. Are you drunk and gay by any chance, love?
pawian  219 | 24592
2 Sep 2024   #512
Darling, where did I complain??? I commented with satisfaction that we can hardly manage to satisfy German demand for trade and cooperation. Ha!!!
gay, love

Do you have a crush on me, already, darling??? Sorry, I am taken.

Stop imagining too many things at a time. Your mind might burst under the pressure. hahahaha
Marrakesh
2 Sep 2024   #513
I commented with satisfaction

Excuses, excuses.

Sorry, I am taken.

What's his name?
jon357  72 | 22778
3 Sep 2024   #514
there is nothing to suggest that London had greater trust in the Ukrainian ability to withstand an invasion

There is, which is why the then PM alone supported Ukraine right from the start when other countries' leaders would have been happier if President Zelenskyy gave up and didn't do anything that might affect their dodgy oli/gas deals with the pariah state r*SSia.

And yes, not only is it the only major country in Europe that is fully independent, it's also the only one without a lame duck political leader.

The UK was well-positioned to actually make a difference for Ukraine until 2022.

And did make a difference.

Anyway, 'Nordstream' in both its iterations is long gone and will never be replaced.

BTW, if you want to reply to my posts, don't remove my name from the quote. It is a weird and strangely passive aggressive thing to do to every poster as a matter of course.
Tacitus  2 | 1241
3 Sep 2024   #515
@jon357

which is why the then PM alone supported Ukraine right from the start

But only to a very, very limited degree. The evidence is irrefutable. The UK - like the USA - gave only very limited aid to Ukraine, most of which could also be used in a guerilla war. If London had had greater confidence in the Ukrainian army, they would have supplied them with heavy weapons right away, instead of waiting for 3 more months.

The UK is as you say "independent". They could have supplied Ukraine with tanks, heavy artillery, planes et al even before 2022 with no one being able to veto it. But they did not, most likely because they shared their Western allies scepticism of Ukraine's capabilities. Which is fine. But it is hardly something to brag about.

it's also the only one without a lame duck political leader.

It is certainly nice to see that the UK has finally a respectable PM again.

don't remove my name from the quote.

I dont, they are just like that in posts when I quote them.
jon357  72 | 22778
3 Sep 2024   #516
The evidence is irrefutable

There isn't evidence. The UK PM advised them to stay strong while others didn't.

A lot of bluster there, intended to distract from the groundswell in support for r*SSia within Germany, including its government and military. At least one thing is certain; there will be no more cheap oil/gas deals wtht r*SSia, ever. That boat has sailed.

A 'respectable PM'? We always did. Although I disagree with the politics of those in office between 2010 and 2024, they were certainly all respectable, even Sunak.

I dont, they are just like that in posts when I quote them.

They've been 'just like that' for around a decade and nobody else has that problem.

I don't believe you.


Home / News / Is NORD STREAM dangerous for Poland's natural enviroment?

Please login to post here!