Best Of

Russia invaded the Baltic states three times last century, occupying them for decades after WWII.
It's not exactly surprising they're worried about a repeat.

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may become Putin's next target - because of this, the leaders of the Baltic countries criticized any attempts to force Ukraine to cede territory, writes FT.
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1954123898296975865

It’s been a very long running piece of irredentism that any land that was ever part of the Russian Empire is part of the New Russian Empire (of whatever version)

The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.

Russia devastated the Baltics several times in the 20thC (twice playing tag team with the Germans).
Ideologically friendly Balts formed the backbone of the early Bolshevik Red Army, and the Cheka (and later died in Stalin's purges).

Others provided slave labour for various projects between the two world wars, or died in the gulags.

The hatred and distrust of Russia has deep and well grounded foundations.

As with Ukraine, history has inconvenient facts for anyone seeking one-dimensional heroes and villains, from Putin to each of us. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_collaboration_in_the_Baltic_states for the other side of the story.

Rather than rely on history, with nearly all the actors no longer alive, it's best to concentrate on the present. The Baltic States seem all to have large majorities who are happy to be independent, and we should support that, while reserving the right to be critical of treatment of pro-Russian minorities. Personally I doubt if there's a serious threat, because of their NATO membership, which makes them very different from Ukraine, but there's no reason why we shouldn't reinforce the commitment to supporting their independence.

Is NATO meaningful now, though, with this new America? Eg if Russia were to attack the Baltics the US might intervene but it wouldn't be because of a treaty obligation (which Trump laughs at) it would be because he feels personally slighted, or just likes the idea for some reason or other. Conversely if he doesn't they won't.

Never mind the US all other NATO nations would have to send troops and jets to the Baltics and intervene militarily if a NATO member state was invaded, which was not the case with non NATO Ukraine

Yes but without the US we're looking at something different - a Common European Defence Obligation. CEDO.

That would have to be backed up by capability and it will take a decade, even if the money and political will is there, to build that to a level which fills the hole left by the Americans.

Which is why, galling though it is, Trump can't be just told to eff off. And why if he does (from Ukraine) it will create a massive crisis.

A Common European and Canadian and Turkish Defence Obligation but yes your point is valid, though if a Democrat wins the Presidency next time it may not be needed long term anyway

I think we need to remember that Trump has been elected twice. We can no longer rely on the United States

No but it is also possible in 2029 Buttiegieg for example could be US President while Bardella is President of France and Farage PM of the UK, in which case the US may at that point be more reliable for Zelensky than the French and us.

The problem is UVDL has committed to huge spending on US arms and equipment and the EU will remain heavily involved with the US for defence

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/jun/24/visual-guide-can-europe-really-defend-itself-alone?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Good morning

Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched

Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves

“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.

What prompts did you use for this one?

I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending

The truth hurts at times

But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths

1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?

2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.

3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-

https://news.sky.com/story/chancellor-rachel-reeves-looking-to-find-40bn-in-budget-13234210

So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?

5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.

I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.

Like the old days! It's a while since we've seen some analysis that goes beyond the use of caps and swearing

Good morning

Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched

Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves

“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.

What prompts did you use for this one?

I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending

The truth hurts at times

But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths

1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?

2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.

3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-

https://news.sky.com/story/chancellor-rachel-reeves-looking-to-find-40bn-in-budget-13234210

So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?

5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.

I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.

Like the old days! It's a while since we've seen some analysis that goes beyond the use of caps and swearing

It was known when the employee NI cuts were made that it was based on absolutely everything going right all the time for them to be affordable.

Guess what - Hunt isn't the chancellor and things didn't go perfectly.

Good morning

Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched

Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves

“Ruse”. “Self Created”. “Reeves black hole”. “Addicted”.

What prompts did you use for this one?

I do not use prompts, just a fair observation of Reeves job destroying Autumn Statement and surely nobody denies labour are addicted to spending

The truth hurts at times

But literally none of this is true! You are telling reflexive untruths

1. A “ruse” is a trick, a deception. This article is an op-ed by a former leader, not even policy yet, it may never even be policy, which sets out (if adopted) exactly what they would do. How exactly is it a “ruse”?

2. “…not that popular according to polls…” is demonstrably untrue given the thread header confirms the (proposed) policy itself polls at 70% support.

3. “…self created black hole of £40 billion…” which you later go on to suggest was caused by the 30 October 2024 autumn statement. But this figure was being discussed BEFORE the Autumn statement. Here’s an article mentioning it 2 weeks earlier-

https://news.sky.com/story/chancellor-rachel-reeves-looking-to-find-40bn-in-budget-13234210

So when did Reeves create this “black hole” before the Autumn statement? Why was she looking to fill it? What economic levers did she disasterously pull between 4 July and October 2024 to create this oft quoted figure?

5. As for “addicted”…what do you want me to say here? The original sin of this government (winter fuel allowance) that precipitated its rapid fall in the polls was a significant spending cut.

I’m sorry but none of your post stood up to any scrutiny at all.

You are wrong about 3). Its based upon a new report by NIESR, that says against the new government targets set in their budget they will miss by £40bn by the end of the parliament.

The Government is not on track to meet its ‘stability rule’, with our forecast suggesting a current deficit of £41.2 billion in the fiscal year 2029-30

https://niesr.ac.uk/publications/uk-economic-outlook-chancellors-trilemma?type=uk-economic-outlook

This is what Big_G_NorthWales is referring it and it has been widely reported across the media over the past week.

I’ll leave it to Big G to confirm exactly which of these many £40B figures he’s referring to.

I note that question has already been answered and this poll by yougov in July 24 is salient to the unpopularity of scraping the 2 child cap:

Regardless of the merits of the policy, the Labour leadership will be reassured that their current pledge of keeping the two-child limit is supported by six in ten Britons (60%), with less than three in ten (28%) believing it should be abolished.

There is support for keeping the cap across almost all voting and social groups, including Labour voters, who back it by 50% to 38%. The only exception is among 18-24 year olds, only a third (32%) of whom think the cap should be kept, with nearly half (46%) opposing it. Older voters are far more likely to favour the policy, with 69% of over-65s wanting it to stay and only 21% believing it should be abolished.

Make it proportional rather than a sharp cap at 2.

First kid 100%
Second kid 80%
Third kid 50%
Fourth 25%


Probably doesn't cost much more than a cap at 2 but feels better to me.

Good morning

Another labour ruse of raising taxes and then spending them on another spending commitment (which by the way is not popular according to polls) and at the same leaving the entirely 'self created Reeves black hole of 40 billion' untouched

Labour are addicted to taxing and spending, and just cannot help themselves

White the Tories just spent and borrowed.

Unprecented Covid and war in Ukraine and labour would have spent even more:

How much was spent on Covid-19 measures?

The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in very high levels of public spending. Current estimates of the total cost of government Covid-19 measures range from about £310 billion to £410 billion. This is the equivalent of about £4,600 to £6,100 per person in the UK.

Official figures show that spending in 2020/21 was about £179 billion higher than had been planned before the pandemic for that year.

Source: National Audit Office and HM Treasury (NAO/HMT), Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), and International Monetary Fund (IMF); see section 1.1 of this briefing for details. Calculated using UK population estimate from Office for National Statistics (ONS), Population estimates for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: mid-2020, 25 June 2021

A picture is sometimes better than many words

Indeed it does. You can see the problem started, to give it a political date, after the 2001 election, when the investment spending taps were well and truly turned on by Gordon Brown.

The country was in a bad place even before the 2008 recession, and has never properly recovered. There were still deficits 12 years later when the pandemic hit.

Have another dekko at the chart and it looks like Brown's spending taps took us to roughly where we'd been previously in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

And before he turned the taps on he filled the tank with some surpluses. (or should that be surpli?)

Russia invaded the Baltic states three times last century, occupying them for decades after WWII.
It's not exactly surprising they're worried about a repeat.

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may become Putin's next target - because of this, the leaders of the Baltic countries criticized any attempts to force Ukraine to cede territory, writes FT.
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1954123898296975865

It’s been a very long running piece of irredentism that any land that was ever part of the Russian Empire is part of the New Russian Empire (of whatever version)

The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.

Russia devastated the Baltics several times in the 20thC (twice playing tag team with the Germans).
Ideologically friendly Balts formed the backbone of the early Bolshevik Red Army, and the Cheka (and later died in Stalin's purges).

Others provided slave labour for various projects between the two world wars, or died in the gulags.

The hatred and distrust of Russia has deep and well grounded foundations.

As with Ukraine, history has inconvenient facts for anyone seeking one-dimensional heroes and villains, from Putin to each of us. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_collaboration_in_the_Baltic_states for the other side of the story.

Rather than rely on history, with nearly all the actors no longer alive, it's best to concentrate on the present. The Baltic States seem all to have large majorities who are happy to be independent, and we should support that, while reserving the right to be critical of treatment of pro-Russian minorities. Personally I doubt if there's a serious threat, because of their NATO membership, which makes them very different from Ukraine, but there's no reason why we shouldn't reinforce the commitment to supporting their independence.

Is NATO meaningful now, though, with this new America? Eg if Russia were to attack the Baltics the US might intervene but it wouldn't be because of a treaty obligation (which Trump laughs at) it would be because he feels personally slighted, or just likes the idea for some reason or other. Conversely if he doesn't they won't.

Never mind the US all other NATO nations would have to send troops and jets to the Baltics and intervene militarily if a NATO member state was invaded, which was not the case with non NATO Ukraine

Yes but without the US we're looking at something different - a Common European Defence Obligation. CEDO.

That would have to be backed up by capability and it will take a decade, even if the money and political will is there, to build that to a level which fills the hole left by the Americans.

Which is why, galling though it is, Trump can't be just told to eff off. And why if he does (from Ukraine) it will create a massive crisis.

A Common European and Canadian and Turkish Defence Obligation but yes your point is valid, though if a Democrat wins the Presidency next time it may not be needed long term anyway

I think we need to remember that Trump has been elected twice. We can no longer rely on the United States

Russia invaded the Baltic states three times last century, occupying them for decades after WWII.
It's not exactly surprising they're worried about a repeat.

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may become Putin's next target - because of this, the leaders of the Baltic countries criticized any attempts to force Ukraine to cede territory, writes FT.
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1954123898296975865

It’s been a very long running piece of irredentism that any land that was ever part of the Russian Empire is part of the New Russian Empire (of whatever version)

The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.

Russia devastated the Baltics several times in the 20thC (twice playing tag team with the Germans).
Ideologically friendly Balts formed the backbone of the early Bolshevik Red Army, and the Cheka (and later died in Stalin's purges).

Others provided slave labour for various projects between the two world wars, or died in the gulags.

The hatred and distrust of Russia has deep and well grounded foundations.

As with Ukraine, history has inconvenient facts for anyone seeking one-dimensional heroes and villains, from Putin to each of us. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_collaboration_in_the_Baltic_states for the other side of the story.

Rather than rely on history, with nearly all the actors no longer alive, it's best to concentrate on the present. The Baltic States seem all to have large majorities who are happy to be independent, and we should support that, while reserving the right to be critical of treatment of pro-Russian minorities. Personally I doubt if there's a serious threat, because of their NATO membership, which makes them very different from Ukraine, but there's no reason why we shouldn't reinforce the commitment to supporting their independence.

Is NATO meaningful now, though, with this new America? Eg if Russia were to attack the Baltics the US might intervene but it wouldn't be because of a treaty obligation (which Trump laughs at) it would be because he feels personally slighted, or just likes the idea for some reason or other. Conversely if he doesn't they won't.

Never mind the US all other NATO nations would have to send troops and jets to the Baltics and intervene militarily if a NATO member state was invaded, which was not the case with non NATO Ukraine

Yes but without the US we're looking at something different - a Common European Defence Obligation. CEDO.

That would have to be backed up by capability and it will take a decade, even if the money and political will is there, to build that to a level which fills the hole left by the Americans.

Which is why, galling though it is, Trump can't be just told to eff off. And why if he does (from Ukraine) it will create a massive crisis.

A Common European and Canadian and Turkish Defence Obligation but yes your point is valid, though if a Democrat wins the Presidency next time it may not be needed long term anyway

Russia invaded the Baltic states three times last century, occupying them for decades after WWII.
It's not exactly surprising they're worried about a repeat.

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may become Putin's next target - because of this, the leaders of the Baltic countries criticized any attempts to force Ukraine to cede territory, writes FT.
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1954123898296975865

It’s been a very long running piece of irredentism that any land that was ever part of the Russian Empire is part of the New Russian Empire (of whatever version)

The USSR had it as policy. Putin has made it the policy of his party.

Russia devastated the Baltics several times in the 20thC (twice playing tag team with the Germans).
Ideologically friendly Balts formed the backbone of the early Bolshevik Red Army, and the Cheka (and later died in Stalin's purges).

Others provided slave labour for various projects between the two world wars, or died in the gulags.

The hatred and distrust of Russia has deep and well grounded foundations.

As with Ukraine, history has inconvenient facts for anyone seeking one-dimensional heroes and villains, from Putin to each of us. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_collaboration_in_the_Baltic_states for the other side of the story.

Rather than rely on history, with nearly all the actors no longer alive, it's best to concentrate on the present. The Baltic States seem all to have large majorities who are happy to be independent, and we should support that, while reserving the right to be critical of treatment of pro-Russian minorities. Personally I doubt if there's a serious threat, because of their NATO membership, which makes them very different from Ukraine, but there's no reason why we shouldn't reinforce the commitment to supporting their independence.

Is NATO meaningful now, though, with this new America? Eg if Russia were to attack the Baltics the US might intervene but it wouldn't be because of a treaty obligation (which Trump laughs at) it would be because he feels personally slighted, or just likes the idea for some reason or other. Conversely if he doesn't they won't.

Never mind the US all other NATO nations would have to send troops and jets to the Baltics and intervene militarily if a NATO member state was invaded, which was not the case with non NATO Ukraine

Yes but without the US we're looking at something different - a Common European Defence Obligation. CEDO.

That would have to be backed up by capability and it will take a decade, even if the money and political will is there, to build that to a level which fills the hole left by the Americans.

Which is why, galling though it is, Trump can't be just told to eff off. And why if he does (from Ukraine) it will create a massive crisis.