Best Of

Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?

I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?

We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.

Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.

Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.

He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.

Totally sympathise. And our USA friends need to know that in Europe one of our feelings is a profound sadness and solidarity with our friends.

But there is one more thing to say. What cannot be denied is that USA voters voted for Trump, and for an GOP congress, in the 100% full knowledge of what Trump had said in speech after speech; including tariffs, isolationism, making sure the Ukraine war was forced to an end, regarding Canada as an annexe with a governor as PM, and seeking to acquire Greenland.

They also knew (6 Jan) that Trump was a liar, rabble rouser and fraud who only believed in an electoral process when he won. They also knew that he never criticises Russia.

They have got what they voted for and what he stood for. Which was the bit those changing their minds didn't get?

.

Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?

I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?

We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.

Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.

Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.

He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.

Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.

I don't just disagree with that; I think it's a massively counterproductive response (not you personally, but in general).

If you don't welcome the conversion of political opponents, or ridicule the admission of mistakes (even the most egregious ones), then you do your own favoured policies a huge disservice.

Yes, the sinner that repents must be welcomed back, else they won't repent.

Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?

I find it hard to understand why so many Trump supporters on the UK right - such as Jenrick - now criticise him when it was absolutely clear what he was going to do on Ukraine and tariffs well before November. Were they being opportunistic then or is it now?

We have friends in California who are (or were) Trump voters. He voted Trump because (a) concerns about illegal immigration / crime, and (b) because he thought Trump (as a businessman() would manage the economy better than Harris.

Said friend has a clothing business: he basically supplies big chains with own label clothing that bears a remarkable physical resemblance to that made by more expensive brands.

Before the election, he saw the way the wind was blowing and moved a lot of production out of China, and into Mexico. He's been absolutely poll-axed by the Mexican tariffs: he's genuinely worried he is going to lose his business because his contracts are in the US and his cost of importation just rose 25%, and his customers don't care.

He's still clinging on to the hope that this will all blow over, but he's in wide eyed shock right now that things have gone the way they've gone.

Please find me the smallest violin . Sorry if this sounds a bit flippant and you said they’re friends of yours but I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Trump and if they get screwed now I could care less.

He's a human being.

I didn't agree with his vote, but he's just another human being.

Our distaste, bordering on contempt, for Donald Trump is a remarkably unifying factor across our political spectrum. Surely an organised two minute hate would be appropriate and bring together society's disparate factions?

Trump is the great unifying factor. Watch as Europe comes together in ways that were politically impossible a few months ago. Watch as developed countries like Mexico and Canada band together to repel tariffs from the savages between them. Watch as the American constitution is hollowed out and finally set aside.

Trump wants America to become North Korea. That's fine, you get what you vote for. NATO is a relic of the cold war anyway, time to build something new. Or something old, when Europe used to be military power and the colonialists sat fighting each other.

For all that Ukraine is important, it is the canary in the coal mine. Europe is going to struggle to defend Ukraine with the US switching sides to join the Axis. But the needs of Ukraine show the needs of Europe. We may not be able to resist Putin in Ukraine, but their fight means we will resist him elsewhere. Trump too.

You are not wrong to consider the risks that the US actively backs Russia in Ukraine. They could easily end up being the recipients of US military intelligence, rather than the Ukrainians.

But would he actually send US military equipment to Russia? My guess is no: I just can't see it.

Trump *has already backed* Russia in Ukraine. I absolutely agree that this isn't a military partnership and like you I can't see that happening. But Trump had to pick a side, and he picked Russia.

There is something simplifying about this, cutting through the noise of incremental changes in policy. We don't need to second guess any more - Trump is allied with Putin, and both of them have their country's political structures built around them.

Germany has just announced a "whatever it takes" rearmament program. We should do the same - and despite the whining from SF this is an opportunity to sort our economy out. As distasteful as building armaments is, we need them, and we need skills, jobs and investment.

Whatever it takes...

FPT @Luckyguy1983:

US has stopped sharing all intelligence with Ukraine.

So when U.S. Key Hole reconnaissance satellites see Kh-101 cruise missiles targeted at power plants and hospitals being loaded on to Tu-95’s in Russia, they won’t be warning Ukraine in advance. Nice, another absolutely unconscionable decision.
https://x.com/ELINTNews/status/1897303126698549276

Trump is effectively using civilian lives as leverage for his minerals deals.

No pretence they'd be getting (probably worthless anyway) security guarantees in exchange for the "minerals deal". Just sign it or we're abandoning you. Blackmail, pure and simple.

Zelensky has never had any choice but to sign. Even if the other countries involved stumped up heaps of extra cash, we don't have the infrastructure and the kit to take over from the US as the main supplier.

However, whoever signs up to surrender territory to the Russians after losing so many lifes fighting for it, will not survive politically in Ukraine. Once he signs, it will be the end of Zelensky's Presidency.

What Trump and Vance's hardballing has done, whether by accident or design, has given Zelensky a shred of dignity to say "I tried - it was the end of the line - they even cut off the Himars etc.". That won't get him re-elected but it does perhaps soften the blow and enhance his reputation.

You can almost taste the glee as you write those words.

There's no glee. I am in the position of wanting the war to end, but on terms that guarantee the future security (and viability and prosperity) of Ukraine. That has been my position for about two years - it hasn't changed.

Yea, it is a similar view to that held by Oswald Mosely and Lord Halifax.

Why is a dispassionate assessment of the current situation in Ukraine so difficult for PBers to digest.

Whilst some get too passionate and it may affect their assessments, not all 'dispassionate' assessments are as dispassionate as they may claim, and it is absolutely reasonable to point that out if people think that is what is happening, and I think it is. Not all 'realpolitik' positions are, in fact, pragmatic realpolitik either.

Yes. The passionate assessment is that Ukraine are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. I think we all agree on that?
The dispassionate assessment is that Russia is in a uniquely beatable position and through the west assisting Ukraine we have the opportunity to weaken a hostile force. All it takes is the commitmemt to supply materiel and intelligence and logistics, and it is fully in our interests to do so. It is strange when people (whether posters on here or politicians) are trying to discourage our friends and encourage our enemies, and makes us question whose side they are on.

Russia is the aggressor, that is certainly true. They have done wicked things, that is also true. I don't agree with the terminology of good guys and bad guys because the truth usually gets trampled over in that set up. We need to be able to discuss the wrong-doing of the 'good guys' and see the humanity of the 'bad guys' sometimes. Life isn't a film. We haven't been able to do that freely on PB without being accused of treason in some form, which is a loathsome accusation.

As for the 'disapassionate' argument you make, I'm afraid I think you're completely wrong. Russia is a regional power that bullies its neighbours. That is reprehensible, but it is sadly not uncommon. Turkey is currently illegally occupying two other countries. Israel just marched into what's left of Syria to protect ethnic Jews. It may be vaguely in our interests to thwart Russia, but it's nowhere near vital enough that we should be stripping the army of equipment and spending countless billions just to kill a few more of them.

Regarding real threats: China is on a centuries-long mission to supplant the Western economies and become the dominant world power, with widespread industrial espionage and secret police forces on UK soil in its toolbox. India opposes us globally as a hated colonial bogeyman, seeks to influence our society by migration, and has nurtered a growing hold over our politicians. Turkey hosts the Muslim Brotherhood that exercises a hidden but profound influence over many Muslim communities in the UK. Saudi Arabia sponsors the spread of a toxic Salafist doctrine via mosques, that has been at the heart of various acts of terror. To my mind, all these countries represent a significantly bigger threat to our real security interests than Russia does.

I often wholeheartedly disagree with your posts but not this one - I think (a) your assessment overall is good and (b) you bring a valuable analysis to this site that is fairly original - ignore those who accuse you of being a Russian shill.

I would just take issue with the second paragraph. You draw an equivalence between Russia and other regional powers that may or may not be true. Historically Russia was far more than a regional power and there is evidence that Putin harks back to that history as his legitimating myth. The potential downside of Russia being more comparable to Germany in
the 1930s is huge. I don't doubt that many on here are overstating the likelihood of this latter comparison, but it's worth insuring ourselves against it if possible.

I agree, though, that this shouldn't be to the exclusion of attempting to defend ourselves against China's more subtle and nefarious infiltration of our economy and society in the ways you mention.

If we beef up our military, including intelligence, this won't just help us counter Russian aggression - it will also help us counter the Chinese (and potentially US) variants. It still probably will be woefully inadequate, but it is worth making the attempt.

@Luckyguy1983's analysis is generally sound, but it does miss the extent to which Russia interferes in the affairs of other countries.

For example, it's funding of environmental groups in Poland with the goal of getting fracking banned. (Which I admit, I am particularly sore about, as I owned a large chunk of Poland's shale gas assets at the time. And I completely missed the political risk.)

It has also bribed politicians across Eastern Europe (and one of the reasons why Putin thought the Ukraine war would be over so quickly was because he thought he'd bought everyone that mattered.)

There are also the Troll Farms (in particular the Internet Research Agency in St Petersberg) that seek to spread disinformation, sow discord (and probably influence elections).

And finally, it has killed people on British soil.

Personally, I treat Russia as a pretty hostile state.

...

I wonder how long it will be until a major world leader states plainly that “America is now our enemy”. It surely can’t be long.

We have a major world leader called Keir Starmer. What he says is complicted by some hard facts. These facts include the facility the new enemy has to keep his nuclear installations in Suffolk, and his contracts to maintain your own. This places USA in a slightly different position from China, Russia, Iran etc.

The extent to which this is a global nightmare has yet to come home to us, and it won't be long before talk turns to how USA politics and the institutions of civil society might deal with the matter internally. No-one else in the west possibly can do it.

Meanwhile, the rest of us have to comprehend that everything Sir K and the government say and do is under the constraints mentioned here, and a million more, including stuff we can't know exists. A government of national unity would be entirely understandable. But we will be slow to go that way, as it rather lets the cat out of the bunker about where we stand.

You've expressed much more effectively than I could what I think is the obvious next question in this debacle: what will the Americans do about this? It seems to me that the American public are the only ones with any agency to stop Trump. Will they do it before it's too late? It is, I think, the defining question of our times.

What do you suggest they do?

Trump is in power. He can't be removed except by impeachment, which the Senate won't agree to;

He has total power due to immunity, granted by the courts;

He's clearly completely insane, but there's no mechanism to remove him as the only ones who can so certify him are even madder;

Even if he did, his replacement is clearly on the Kremlin's payroll;

And he's there for another four years.

The real issue is the quite shocking decision of the American public to elect a man who was a convicted criminal, a known tax cheat, a confirmed sex offender, a failed president, an open traitor and boasting about various criminal acts he would commit when elected on campaign.

They knew all this and still voted for him. Why do we assume the stupid twats care about the damage he's doing to the world *and to them?* And even if they do - well, we're back to, there's nothing that can actually be done about it.

...

Jenrick has played a blinder

Questions are coming from all sides:

"I don’t quite understand how Shabana Mahmood can simultaneously claim the Sentencing Council is independent but then pledge there will be no two-tier sentencing on her watch. Has this happened on her watch or hasn’t it."


https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1897352446596542844

As Starmer has floundered, Jenrick has had a very good war too.

Shame Jenrick is such a repulsive barsteward.

Starmer has played a weak hand weakly.

Not sure anyone of any other party would have been any better.

Maybe Boris could have made us feel that we were consequential.

Yes, Starmer has been an unmitigated disaster. But Johnson? It speaks volumes that Johnson hasn't, as far as I am aware, given his .unequivocal support to Ukraine and castigated Trump since it all kicked off last week.

Come off it. Just take a look at his twitter feed. Full of things about supporting Ukraine.

In the last week? Perhaps you could help me out. If you can I will apologise unreservedly to you.

Yes, he commented after the White House meeting. I’m not sure what you are trying to insinuate, that he has now become a Putin backer or something?

Some people, once they have chosen a baddie, will not allow that that person might have views they agree on about anything at all.

Toppers said in the light of Starmer's abject diplomatic failure Johnson should be given a ride out. I am just saying he would be worse, and I referenced that by his inability to condemn Trump.

It's simply nonsense. Starmer has had a suffuciently goid week for his party's polling to be approving, and to be attracting praise from Tories, and Johnson is the last person to either bring Europe and America together, or lead Europe, as a person with a very low prestige in Europe.

Starmer has been poor. It's not entirely his doing. Managing Trump and Vance has been like herding cats. His simpering hand-wringing performance on Thursday could have gone worse. Indeed by the following day it had.

Many of us are disappointed he can't bring himself to say Trump and Vance are a pair of ****s, and Trump can shove the invite from the King up his diapered ar**. To be fair that is exactly what Jenrick and today Kemi have said. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult for Johnson to declare the same.

But that seems to achieve nothing with Trump.

We would probably be looking at the same 25% tariffs as the E.U, and no input into the Zelensky-Trump relationship that he is having.

I was hearing today we are likely to get the tariffs anyway. Vance hates Starmer and Britain. Musk despises Starmer. Starmer is whoring the nation for nothing.

It's buying two important, but related things.

One of them is time. Every day that the orange one doesn't explode angrily over us, like Mr Creosote, is a day where a bit more preparation can happen behind the scenes. And it needs to be behind the scenes, so as not to provoke President Toddler. The rest of the world can't buy enough time, but every day is a bit of a bonus.

The other is public permission for the unpleasantness to come. Even a week ago, there were plenty of non-crackpots looking forward to a Brilliant US-UK Trade Deal that would protect us from the incoming storm. I don't think any of them still do now, because of the events of the past week. When the UK goes onto a warlike footing (and I fear it is inevitable), it needs to be with the heaviest of hearts, becuase every attempt to play nice has failed.

This bit really isn't dignified, and I have to wonder when the equivalent of Chamberlain's September 1939 speech is coming, but it is still necessary.

The treason of America, if that is what is to come, will need all of us to pull together. In Estonia we know we would be next, which is why support for Ukraine is as much a part of Estonian defence as the now projected 5% spending on the Estonian military. With the militia, even Estonia can put 40,000 extremely well equipped troops into the field immediately, and over 80,000 have received military training. The Finnish army is a formidable force, so is the Swedish and the Polish armed forces, and the Lithuanian and Latvian armed forces can hold on too. British, French and Danish troops are already here, but the UK contingent needs more air defence. the Estonians do not have enough to defend Tallinn and the British base at Tapa.

The civilian early warning system is ready: my nearest shelter is about 200m away. We would receive warnings through the mobile network to take shelter. My friends in the reserves have been on exercise for weeks on end in the past year, so they are as ready as they can be.

The Russian speakers are even more determined to defend Estonia- they know better than anyone how bad things are under Putin and what he would do to them if they ever came here (the same feeling is amongst the Russian speakers of Ukraine in places like Kharkiv too).

We still hope for the best, but, increasingly we are prepared for the worst. People here are shocked and horrified, but determined and ready.

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the Soviet terror bombing of Tallinn in 1944. Estonians do not forget.