Best Of

Starmer is all in.

No way to back out of this now.

He'll have to resign if he ends up somehow having to dump Zelensky for Trump's Putinist USA.

These are the highest of stakes a PM gets to play.



UK Prime Minister
@10DowningStreet

The UK will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

https://x.com/10DowningStreet/status/1895950498576154630

I am going to stick my neck out and say that he will honour his pledge. I don't like Starmer or his politics but I think he has a brain and he also has a moral code. I am going to do something very rare and trust him to be doing the right thing for the right reasons.

Of course on all other matters my normal cynicism is maintained but in this instance I think he is genuine.

I disagree, I’m the other way. There is absolutely no way Putin will agree to allow what’s left of Ukraine to join NATO, will never sign anything allowing that, so Starmer and Europe are locked on course to selling out Ukraine. Wave after wave of talks will fall on the question of NATO membership until Starmer and Europe will insist Ukraine cuts a deal that will never be justified or fair, in order to make the war stop.

There is no “win win” or lasting peace option from where it is now, so all hugs in Downing Street and elsewhere in Europe have to be seen as ultimately leading to that betrayal and an unfair deal for Ukraine forced on them. that in itself will set the precedent sovereign borders can be redrawn, that will be music to the Kremlin’s ears.

Not at all. Russia is already struggling - why do you think they are relying on North Korea to provide cannon fodder? What is important is to do what Ukraine wants and keep them in the game. Make sure they can continue to fight this war and force Russia into concessions. It doesn't ned Putin to agree to Ukraine joining NATO, not at the moment. That can come later. What it needs is for NATO minus the USA to give Ukraine they need to carry on the fight.

What weapons would those be, from our run-down stocks? We can give Ukraine money to buy American arms, but those sales would need American government approval – and to be in time for use, would need to come from US Army stocks. Arms manufacturing pipelines are long and slow. Taiwan is currently taking delivery of weapons it bought during the first Trump presidency.

Russia is slowly winning on the battlefield, despite its huge death tolls, or at least is not losing. The Russian economy has not collapsed, despite sanctions, and as soon as peace breaks out and sanctions are lifted, Russia can rebuild its treasury by resuming exports of its dig-and-sell commodities, including gas and oil.

So what Ukraine needs is America back in the game, at least as backstop. With American support, Russia cannot win. Without it (and even with it under Trump) the best Ukraine can hope for is not to give too much away in any ceasefire agreement or peace deal.

So in the short term, America needs Starmer and Lammy and Mandelson, and also Healey through Nato, to patch things up with the White House, at least to get things back to where they were before Vance and Zelensky started arguing.

That's true and not true.

Every critique of Ukraine is also true of Russia:

It can't win without foreign assistance.
It's economy is faltering.
There's a limited stock of weapons for them to draw down.

Ultimately, the "bear case" for Ukraine is that it cannot win because Russia has so many more resources. But is that true? Russia has 3x the population of Ukraine, but attacking is much harder than defending, and holding territory is hard.

It seems that neither side can actually land a knock out blow. The problem, ultimately, is that Putin can't sell the current situation as a win to his people, and therefore is obliged to push on, despite losses that aren't that different to British ones in the worst parts of WW1, and for what?

Starmer is all in.

No way to back out of this now.

He'll have to resign if he ends up somehow having to dump Zelensky for Trump's Putinist USA.

These are the highest of stakes a PM gets to play.



UK Prime Minister
@10DowningStreet

The UK will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

https://x.com/10DowningStreet/status/1895950498576154630

I am going to stick my neck out and say that he will honour his pledge. I don't like Starmer or his politics but I think he has a brain and he also has a moral code. I am going to do something very rare and trust him to be doing the right thing for the right reasons.

Of course on all other matters my normal cynicism is maintained but in this instance I think he is genuine.

I disagree, I’m the other way. There is absolutely no way Putin will agree to allow what’s left of Ukraine to join NATO, will never sign anything allowing that, so Starmer and Europe are locked on course to selling out Ukraine. Wave after wave of talks will fall on the question of NATO membership until Starmer and Europe will insist Ukraine cuts a deal that will never be justified or fair, in order to make the war stop.

There is no “win win” or lasting peace option from where it is now, so all hugs in Downing Street and elsewhere in Europe have to be seen as ultimately leading to that betrayal and an unfair deal for Ukraine forced on them. that in itself will set the precedent sovereign borders can be redrawn, that will be music to the Kremlin’s ears.

Not at all. Russia is already struggling - why do you think they are relying on North Korea to provide cannon fodder? What is important is to do what Ukraine wants and keep them in the game. Make sure they can continue to fight this war and force Russia into concessions. It doesn't ned Putin to agree to Ukraine joining NATO, not at the moment. That can come later. What it needs is for NATO minus the USA to give Ukraine they need to carry on the fight.

Reposted from the end of the previous thread.

My take on Spatgate is that I don’t think there was a deliberate plan by anyone to sabotage the meeting. What happened was the result of thin skinned egotists losing it.

After about 30 mins the meeting which has been largely cordial is wrapping up. Vance makes a point targeted against Biden. Says Biden’s chest thumping didn’t stop Putin invading Ukraine. Vance says Trump has the answers - diplomacy (= dialogue) and dealing with Putin.

Z addresses Vance somewhat confrontationally. Makes the point that dealing with Putin doesn’t work. A deal was struck with Putin in 2022 and Putin went back on the deal. Z concludes to V “JD what kind of diplomacy you are speaking about? What do you mean?”

Vance is riled. He feels challenged by Z who is effectively saying Vance is wrong. Diplomacy doesn’t work with Putin.

Vance loses his cool. He is angry that Z has publicly disagreed with his one significant contribution to the meeting, challenging him in front of the whole world. He finds it disrespectful and petulantly reacts saying Zelensky is ungrateful. He raises his voice, points his finger, accuses Z of criticising America, says Ukraine is struggling in its war effort and calls Z disrespectful.

Z does not accept Vance’s portrayal of Ukraine struggling. Warns America that Putin could come for them next and that they will feel the influence (threat) of Russia

Trump - triggered initially by Vance saying Z is disrespecting America is further triggered by Z telling America what it feels and it all kicks off.

Vance pours oil onto the fire challenging Z by asking him if he has even thanked America for its help. Takes him to task for “campaigning for the Democrats in Pennsylvania”

It then further escalates.

Conclusion. Z was perhaps unwise to publicly challenge Vance’s “diplomacy thesis”. Vance felt belittled by this and reacted calling Z disrespectful and ungrateful. Trump was triggered by Vance and further triggered by Z forecasting America would in the future also fell threatened by Russia. Trump and Vance both lose it.

Both spacehopper and teh hillbilly have fragile egos. Both absolute arses.

An unremarked point in all this is that the UK has got this premier role in global politics at the moment because of Brexit. The UK sitting outside the EU is allowing for the EU to be sidelined in all of this. Were we still EU members and all other things being equal, there would be absolutely huge pressure on the PM and Macron to coordinate everything through some EU based response which would make it all watered down and worthless. By virtue of not being in the EU the UK has allowed France to also sidestep needing to corral 27 countries into a unified response. As it stands the UK is working directly with France as the other recognised European nuclear abs military power and there's no pressure on either party to consult with Von der Layen and all of the other useless EU commissioners.

Not only is this a tangible Brexit benefit, it's actually a very substantial one. The landscape would be totally different inside the EU and I think significantly more difficult to Trump back in the room.

Brexit looks even more stupid today than it did yesterday

I really dont think Brexit matters in the context of yesterday or what is coming.

We don't need to be in the EU to be leading the fellowship of the ring against the forces of Sauron and his orange-faced orc chief.

An unremarked point in all this is that the UK has got this premier role in global politics at the moment because of Brexit. The UK sitting outside the EU is allowing for the EU to be sidelined in all of this. Were we still EU members and all other things being equal, there would be absolutely huge pressure on the PM and Macron to coordinate everything through some EU based response which would make it all watered down and worthless. By virtue of not being in the EU the UK has allowed France to also sidestep needing to corral 27 countries into a unified response. As it stands the UK is working directly with France as the other recognised European nuclear abs military power and there's no pressure on either party to consult with Von der Layen and all of the other useless EU commissioners.

Not only is this a tangible Brexit benefit, it's actually a very substantial one. The landscape would be totally different inside the EU and I think significantly more difficult to Trump back in the room.

More importantly, who was the great hairy twat of a journalist that queried Zelensky's attire?

"Why aren't you wearing a suit"?

I mean, really? Really? Zelensky is a war leader, they often wear combats and the like to express that status, and fair play, it's not like Zelensky is lying. He was in Kyiv as the bombs fell and as the Russians tried to hunt him down and kill him

It's that ignorant and insulting question that introduces the first discordant note and changes the mood, and you can see how it riles Zelensky (and I don't blame him) - he mentions it several times later (before the Goodfellas out-take)

Suits are stupid anyway. Expensive, high maintenance, usually uncomfortable and not even particularly pleasing aethestically. I've never understood the rule that says the more impractical your clothes, the better the work you do or the more respect you show people you meet.

And as for ties, if they didn't exist, what madman would think of inventing them?

On this, as on much else, I stand with Zelensky and Ukraine.

Starmer is all in.

No way to back out of this now.

He'll have to resign if he ends up somehow having to dump Zelensky for Trump's Putinist USA.

These are the highest of stakes a PM gets to play.



UK Prime Minister
@10DowningStreet

The UK will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

https://x.com/10DowningStreet/status/1895950498576154630

I am going to stick my neck out and say that he will honour his pledge. I don't like Starmer or his politics but I think he has a brain and he also has a moral code. I am going to do something very rare and trust him to be doing the right thing for the right reasons.

Of course on all other matters my normal cynicism is maintained but in this instance I think he is genuine.

An unremarked point in all this is that the UK has got this premier role in global politics at the moment because of Brexit. The UK sitting outside the EU is allowing for the EU to be sidelined in all of this. Were we still EU members and all other things being equal, there would be absolutely huge pressure on the PM and Macron to coordinate everything through some EU based response which would make it all watered down and worthless. By virtue of not being in the EU the UK has allowed France to also sidestep needing to corral 27 countries into a unified response. As it stands the UK is working directly with France as the other recognised European nuclear abs military power and there's no pressure on either party to consult with Von der Layen and all of the other useless EU commissioners.

Not only is this a tangible Brexit benefit, it's actually a very substantial one. The landscape would be totally different inside the EU and I think significantly more difficult to Trump back in the room.

I've agreed with most of your comments over the last few days. But I don't believe for a moment that Macron (or Starmer, for that matter) would have behaved any differently if the UK were still in the EU. Since 1973, there have been a multitude of instances where Britain and France have taken foreign policy stances independently of any collective view of the EU.