For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
The solution is a European defensive alliance that isn't part of the EU's silly CFSP and the Brussels machinery in its quest to become a superstate.
Set up a new European NATO and govern it through the EPU at intergovernmental level.
Ignoring the fact the EU exists is not viable policy. Europe doesn’t want to work that way and hasn’t done for years. European security is more important than trying to push an outdated view of how the continent might be organised.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
If you think America under the Republicans is unreliable, France under Le Pen or Italy under their neo-Commies or neo-Fascists would be much worse. And neither country can remotely offer the capabilities and deep pockets that America can. Remember the Kraut idea of military aid was 5,000 helmets and the Frogs, well, are Frogs. America is simply irreplaceable.
But the US is going to increasingly turn towards seeing China, rather than Russia, as the threat.
European militaries have no choice but to step up, and right now there’s a good opportunity to make it happen, because everyone can see the mad bear walking towards Europe.
BREAK: Following discussions with NI party leaders, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Rt Hon Chris Heaton-Harris MP, confirms an election will not take place in December.
So what does happen now? They can’t form a government, can’t have elections and won’t have direct rule.
Current law requires an election be called, but the election can be in January. To avoid an election would require legislation, but that’s been done before. The UK government are still saying there will be an election in the required timetable, so Jan.
Can’t quite see how that would work. The current Supreme Court is quite capable of striking a federal law down on the grounds it’s not in the Constitution and therefore is a state matter.
Would probably help with future elections - blocking the will of the people, etc.
Don’t see it, frankly. If the Republicans frame it as defending the Constitution it might have the opposite effect, the way that in 1860 the Republicans were willing to guarantee the continuance of slavery where it already existed to avoid that charge from the Democrats.
For some unfathomable reason, despite the fact it’s manifestly shit and about 300 years out of date, the Americans love their constitution. I’d say it’s the single biggest problem in America right now, given its disastrous effects.
There's actually not that much wrong with the thing, other than the difficulty of amending it.
And I think it's foolish to think that the current incarnation of the US right wouldn't find ways to subvert a more rationally designed system.
The guns, the delayed transition, the weak federal system, the slow process of change, the status of Washington DC...
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
If you think America under the Republicans is unreliable, France under Le Pen or Italy under their neo-Commies or neo-Fascists would be much worse. And neither country can remotely offer the capabilities and deep pockets that America can. Remember the Kraut idea of military aid was 5,000 helmets and the Frogs, well, are Frogs. America is simply irreplaceable.
The news report itself records Brady as saying "...Sir Graham said "two candidates" had reached the threshold, and "one of them decided not to then submit his nomination"."
Which may or may not be the same thing!
edit/ Although I guess that "his" is a significant clue!
Which takes us right back to my original prediction that he was *persuaded* not to stand!
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
If you think America under the Republicans is unreliable, France under Le Pen or Italy under their neo-Commies or neo-Fascists would be much worse. And neither country can remotely offer the capabilities and deep pockets that America can. Remember the Kraut idea of military aid was 5,000 helmets and the Frogs, well, are Frogs. America is simply irreplaceable.
Then Putin wins. It's as simple as that.
Indeed. History will look back at this moment and shudder. It wasn’t inevitable.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
If you think America under the Republicans is unreliable, France under Le Pen or Italy under their neo-Commies or neo-Fascists would be much worse. And neither country can remotely offer the capabilities and deep pockets that America can. Remember the Kraut idea of military aid was 5,000 helmets and the Frogs, well, are Frogs. America is simply irreplaceable.
Then Putin wins. It's as simple as that.
It's ironic to reflect the party of Nixon is now trying to appease the Russian empire.
They never get it right, do they? From one extreme to the other...
'Nothing to do with me, guv': policing minister Chris Philp is asked on @BBCBreakfast if he'd apologise for his role in the mini budget when he was a Treasury minister under Liz Truss. He says the decisions were taken by the then PM and to a lesser extent her Chancellor https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/1588437909778087937/photo/1
He said the same on BBCQT last night.
I wasn't aware he existed before the "special fiscal operation" but he really is the prick's prick
Can’t quite see how that would work. The current Supreme Court is quite capable of striking a federal law down on the grounds it’s not in the Constitution and therefore is a state matter.
Would probably help with future elections - blocking the will of the people, etc.
Don’t see it, frankly. If the Republicans frame it as defending the Constitution it might have the opposite effect, the way that in 1860 the Republicans were willing to guarantee the continuance of slavery where it already existed to avoid that charge from the Democrats.
For some unfathomable reason, despite the fact it’s manifestly shit and about 300 years out of date, the Americans love their constitution. I’d say it’s the single biggest problem in America right now, given its disastrous effects.
There's actually not that much wrong with the thing, other than the difficulty of amending it.
And I think it's foolish to think that the current incarnation of the US right wouldn't find ways to subvert a more rationally designed system.
The guns, the delayed transition, the weak federal system, the slow process of change, the status of Washington DC...
The two term limit that bars Obama and opened the door to Trump. Btw surely if Trump ‘won’ in 2020 surely he also cannot stand again.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
If you think America under the Republicans is unreliable, France under Le Pen or Italy under their neo-Commies or neo-Fascists would be much worse. And neither country can remotely offer the capabilities and deep pockets that America can. Remember the Kraut idea of military aid was 5,000 helmets and the Frogs, well, are Frogs. America is simply irreplaceable.
German Gepard flakpanzer have been particularly praised by Ukranians, indeed show that gun based anti-air defence may not be obsolete after all.
According to 538 Only 31% of GOP federal and governor candidates agree that Biden won the 2020 election. And even then many of those do so with caveats.
There seems to be a new variation on the hemline index which will be henceforth known as Rishi’s breeks. I expect him to be in hot pants by 2024 which should please at least one PBer.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
If you think America under the Republicans is unreliable, France under Le Pen or Italy under their neo-Commies or neo-Fascists would be much worse. And neither country can remotely offer the capabilities and deep pockets that America can. Remember the Kraut idea of military aid was 5,000 helmets and the Frogs, well, are Frogs. America is simply irreplaceable.
Then Putin wins. It's as simple as that.
It's ironic to reflect the party of Nixon is now trying to appease the Russian empire.
They never get it right, do they? From one extreme to the other...
If the GOP and the UK, Germany and France allow Putin to win in Ukraine, that is that. There will be lessons taught and possibly absorbed, but it will be far too late. And if the Americans think they will not be affected by the consequences of Europe dominated by psychopaths in Moscow, they will very quickly find out how wrong they are.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
I wonder if we might not first see *eastern* Europe (in the EU) collaborating sufficiently to be far greater than the sum of its parts. Russia is a significant motivator in that regard.
I don't think people are thinking through the consequences of the Ukraine war for Russia. It is not only no longer a great power, it is not a military power at all. Its army and air force have been destroyed in Ukraine, they do not have the technological base to replace what has been lost, we are seeing a country which is dependent upon the industrial prowess of Iran and mercenaries to be able to wage war at all. It's pathetic.
I accept that for so long as they can sell raw materials abroad it doesn't always have to be like this. But it will be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, a much more likely scenario than Russia invading anywhere else is the breakup of Russia itself with the minority nations, who have borne by far the brunt of this war, breaking off from Russia in a similar pattern to what we saw at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The scary bit is that the lesson these new countries will have learned from Ukraine is never give up your nuclear warheads.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
The solution is a European defensive alliance that isn't part of the EU's silly CFSP and the Brussels machinery in its quest to become a superstate.
Set up a new European NATO and govern it through the EPU at intergovernmental level.
Such an arrangement would be basically the EU plus Norway and UK. Of course the EU would be in the driving seat.
There seems to be a new variation on the hemline index which will be henceforth known as Rishi’s breeks. I expect him to be in hot pants by 2024 which should please at least one PBer.
Saving a few quid buying vat free kids trousers? That’s how you become a billionaire. Every penny* counts.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
I wonder if we might not first see *eastern* Europe (in the EU) collaborating sufficiently to be far greater than the sum of its parts. Russia is a significant motivator in that regard.
I don't think people are thinking through the consequences of the Ukraine war for Russia. It is not only no longer a great power, it is not a military power at all. Its army and air force have been destroyed in Ukraine, they do not have the technological base to replace what has been lost, we are seeing a country which is dependent upon the industrial prowess of Iran and mercenaries to be able to wage war at all. It's pathetic.
I accept that for so long as they can sell raw materials abroad it doesn't always have to be like this. But it will be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, a much more likely scenario than Russia invading anywhere else is the breakup of Russia itself with the minority nations, who have borne by far the brunt of this war, breaking off from Russia in a similar pattern to what we saw at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The scary bit is that the lesson these new countries will have learned from Ukraine is never give up your nuclear warheads.
All that is correct for as long as Ukraine has the means to defend itself. And that requires significant US intervention. Should that end, everything changes - and probably pretty quickly.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
The solution is a European defensive alliance that isn't part of the EU's silly CFSP and the Brussels machinery in its quest to become a superstate.
Set up a new European NATO and govern it through the EPU at intergovernmental level.
Such an arrangement would be basically the EU plus Norway and UK. Of course the EU would be in the driving seat.
I am not sure that is right. I would say it's much more likely that it would be a triumvirate of the UK and France, as nuclear powers, and Germany, as the biggest spenders, plus central and eastern European countries, and the Nordics. A lot of EU member states will be peripheral. It really doesn't matter what Portugal, Greece, the Netherlands or Belgium contribute. Even Spain and Italy will be secondary - except - perhaps - with regards to the Med.
There seems to be a new variation on the hemline index which will be henceforth known as Rishi’s breeks. I expect him to be in hot pants by 2024 which should please at least one PBer.
Amazing that he can actually find trousers shorter than he is!
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
I wonder if we might not first see *eastern* Europe (in the EU) collaborating sufficiently to be far greater than the sum of its parts. Russia is a significant motivator in that regard.
I don't think people are thinking through the consequences of the Ukraine war for Russia. It is not only no longer a great power, it is not a military power at all. Its army and air force have been destroyed in Ukraine, they do not have the technological base to replace what has been lost, we are seeing a country which is dependent upon the industrial prowess of Iran and mercenaries to be able to wage war at all. It's pathetic.
I accept that for so long as they can sell raw materials abroad it doesn't always have to be like this. But it will be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, a much more likely scenario than Russia invading anywhere else is the breakup of Russia itself with the minority nations, who have borne by far the brunt of this war, breaking off from Russia in a similar pattern to what we saw at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The scary bit is that the lesson these new countries will have learned from Ukraine is never give up your nuclear warheads.
All that is correct for as long as Ukraine has the means to defend itself. And that requires significant US intervention. Should that end, everything changes - and probably pretty quickly.
It's too late for Russia. They have still lost most of their more modern tanks and are burning their way through their recycled wreaks. They have lost most of their fighter aircraft and never been able to establish air superiority. They have used up their stocks of more sophisticated missiles and don't have access to the chips to make new ones. They have lost most of their more modern artillery, their helicopters and support vehicles.
I accept that if a GOP dominated US cuts off the supply of weapons the current offensives would run out of steam pretty quickly and it is unlikely Ukraine would be able to drive Russia out but that is very different from saying Russia would win. They have already lost.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
The solution is a European defensive alliance that isn't part of the EU's silly CFSP and the Brussels machinery in its quest to become a superstate.
Set up a new European NATO and govern it through the EPU at intergovernmental level.
Ignoring the fact the EU exists is not viable policy. Europe doesn’t want to work that way and hasn’t done for years. European security is more important than trying to push an outdated view of how the continent might be organised.
EPU is a new initiative that's just been set up, and pulls in non EU countries. So that's bamg up to date. If the EU doesn't want to work that way then it can forget non EU countries helping with its defence.
The EU needs to leave the ideology at home about its dream of a superstate if it wants strong European defence.
Can’t quite see how that would work. The current Supreme Court is quite capable of striking a federal law down on the grounds it’s not in the Constitution and therefore is a state matter.
Would probably help with future elections - blocking the will of the people, etc.
Don’t see it, frankly. If the Republicans frame it as defending the Constitution it might have the opposite effect, the way that in 1860 the Republicans were willing to guarantee the continuance of slavery where it already existed to avoid that charge from the Democrats.
For some unfathomable reason, despite the fact it’s manifestly shit and about 300 years out of date, the Americans love their constitution. I’d say it’s the single biggest problem in America right now, given its disastrous effects.
There's actually not that much wrong with the thing, other than the difficulty of amending it.
And I think it's foolish to think that the current incarnation of the US right wouldn't find ways to subvert a more rationally designed system.
The guns, the delayed transition, the weak federal system, the slow process of change, the status of Washington DC...
The two term limit that bars Obama and opened the door to Trump. Btw surely if Trump ‘won’ in 2020 surely he also cannot stand again.
Actually I wouldn't agree about the two term limit. Yes, it stopped Obama running again, but it would also have stopped Trump, had he won in 2020, from running again as well. And merely because Obama looked an OK candidate in 2016 doesn't mean he would have continued to do so. Thatcher looked OK in 1987.
It's also worth remembering that wasn't the original plan, merely a convention, until Roosevelt trampled all over it by getting himself elected four times.
The real mistake there isn't term limits, it was the deranged decision of the parties to select Trump and Clinton as candidates. And that partly stems from problems elsewhere, particularly in the Constitution but also in the economy, that are pushing both parties to the extremes, but mostly comes from Clinton's egomania and refusal to accept that she was a terrible candidate who would almost certainly lose and Trump being - well, Trump.
There seems to be a new variation on the hemline index which will be henceforth known as Rishi’s breeks. I expect him to be in hot pants by 2024 which should please at least one PBer.
Based on the somewhat awkward jaunty angle, did Jeremy Hunt give Rishi a wedgie and steal his tuck money? Those treasury sessions can be brutal.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
I wonder if we might not first see *eastern* Europe (in the EU) collaborating sufficiently to be far greater than the sum of its parts. Russia is a significant motivator in that regard.
I don't think people are thinking through the consequences of the Ukraine war for Russia. It is not only no longer a great power, it is not a military power at all. Its army and air force have been destroyed in Ukraine, they do not have the technological base to replace what has been lost, we are seeing a country which is dependent upon the industrial prowess of Iran and mercenaries to be able to wage war at all. It's pathetic.
I accept that for so long as they can sell raw materials abroad it doesn't always have to be like this. But it will be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, a much more likely scenario than Russia invading anywhere else is the breakup of Russia itself with the minority nations, who have borne by far the brunt of this war, breaking off from Russia in a similar pattern to what we saw at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The scary bit is that the lesson these new countries will have learned from Ukraine is never give up your nuclear warheads.
All that is correct for as long as Ukraine has the means to defend itself. And that requires significant US intervention. Should that end, everything changes - and probably pretty quickly.
It's too late for Russia. They have still lost most of their more modern tanks and are burning their way through their recycled wreaks. They have lost most of their fighter aircraft and never been able to establish air superiority. They have used up their stocks of more sophisticated missiles and don't have access to the chips to make new ones. They have lost most of their more modern artillery, their helicopters and support vehicles.
I accept that if a GOP dominated US cuts off the supply of weapons the current offensives would run out of steam pretty quickly and it is unlikely Ukraine would be able to drive Russia out but that is very different from saying Russia would win. They have already lost.
The US pulling out opens the way for China to help the Russians much more overtly.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
The solution is a European defensive alliance that isn't part of the EU's silly CFSP and the Brussels machinery in its quest to become a superstate.
Set up a new European NATO and govern it through the EPU at intergovernmental level.
Such an arrangement would be basically the EU plus Norway and UK. Of course the EU would be in the driving seat.
It'd be all those in the EPC, including those and Turkey and maybe Switzerland too.
It'd be about who can deliver the hard power in military equipment and capability and the realpolitik of that would call the shots.
Can’t quite see how that would work. The current Supreme Court is quite capable of striking a federal law down on the grounds it’s not in the Constitution and therefore is a state matter.
Would probably help with future elections - blocking the will of the people, etc.
Don’t see it, frankly. If the Republicans frame it as defending the Constitution it might have the opposite effect, the way that in 1860 the Republicans were willing to guarantee the continuance of slavery where it already existed to avoid that charge from the Democrats.
For some unfathomable reason, despite the fact it’s manifestly shit and about 300 years out of date, the Americans love their constitution. I’d say it’s the single biggest problem in America right now, given its disastrous effects.
There's actually not that much wrong with the thing, other than the difficulty of amending it.
And I think it's foolish to think that the current incarnation of the US right wouldn't find ways to subvert a more rationally designed system.
The guns, the delayed transition, the weak federal system, the slow process of change, the status of Washington DC...
The two term limit that bars Obama and opened the door to Trump. Btw surely if Trump ‘won’ in 2020 surely he also cannot stand again.
Actually I wouldn't agree about the two term limit. Yes, it stopped Obama running again, but it would also have stopped Trump, had he won in 2020, from running again as well. And merely because Obama looked an OK candidate in 2016 doesn't mean he would have continued to do so. Thatcher looked OK in 1987.
It's also worth remembering that wasn't the original plan, merely a convention, until Roosevelt trampled all over it by getting himself elected four times.
The real mistake there isn't term limits, it was the deranged decision of the parties to select Trump and Clinton as candidates. And that partly stems from problems elsewhere, particularly in the Constitution but also in the economy, that are pushing both parties to the extremes, but mostly comes from Clinton's egomania and refusal to accept that she was a terrible candidate who would almost certainly lose and Trump being - well, Trump.
Can’t quite see how that would work. The current Supreme Court is quite capable of striking a federal law down on the grounds it’s not in the Constitution and therefore is a state matter.
Would probably help with future elections - blocking the will of the people, etc.
Don’t see it, frankly. If the Republicans frame it as defending the Constitution it might have the opposite effect, the way that in 1860 the Republicans were willing to guarantee the continuance of slavery where it already existed to avoid that charge from the Democrats.
For some unfathomable reason, despite the fact it’s manifestly shit and about 300 years out of date, the Americans love their constitution. I’d say it’s the single biggest problem in America right now, given its disastrous effects.
There's actually not that much wrong with the thing, other than the difficulty of amending it.
And I think it's foolish to think that the current incarnation of the US right wouldn't find ways to subvert a more rationally designed system.
The guns, the delayed transition, the weak federal system, the slow process of change, the status of Washington DC...
The two term limit that bars Obama and opened the door to Trump. Btw surely if Trump ‘won’ in 2020 surely he also cannot stand again.
Actually I wouldn't agree about the two term limit. Yes, it stopped Obama running again, but it would also have stopped Trump, had he won in 2020, from running again as well. And merely because Obama looked an OK candidate in 2016 doesn't mean he would have continued to do so. Thatcher looked OK in 1987.
It's also worth remembering that wasn't the original plan, merely a convention, until Roosevelt trampled all over it by getting himself elected four times.
The real mistake there isn't term limits, it was the deranged decision of the parties to select Trump and Clinton as candidates. And that partly stems from problems elsewhere, particularly in the Constitution but also in the economy, that are pushing both parties to the extremes, but mostly comes from Clinton's egomania and refusal to accept that she was a terrible candidate who would almost certainly lose and Trump being - well, Trump.
Watching Obama campaign recently, I got the impression that the two term limit had artificially created a political vacuum that Trump could exploit. 2016 should have been Trump vs. Obama.
I think some were asking how to beat 10% inflation with their savings the other day.
One answer: back a Republican Majority in the House of Representatives at 1.1 on Betfair. You get a 10% return on your cash (less a bit of commission) in just a few working days.
They only need six gains to take the House over the 2020 elections (they even advanced when all the Dems turned out for Biden in the presidential) and all the polls are pointing to a clear win, and maybe even a blowout. It's probably a 90%+ chance (not 100%, so DYOR) but nothing is really a 100% chance - not even an cash ISA.
I've stuck a grand on because the profit will pay for a nice family meal out we'd otherwise not have. Obviously, don't put your whole life savings in it. Be sensible. But this is as clear as it gets.
Except not all the polls are pointing to a clear win. Just looking at the latest polls on 538 I see several Democrat leads - the very latest poll on there is D +7
Sure Republicans are fairly strong favorites, but 1.1 doesn't seem like much value. It would only take an average polling error of less than 2% in the right ditection to see Democrats hold on in the house.
There's got to be over 50% chance of a polling error at least that big. Even if you think any polling error is 80% likely to be the other way, 1.1 still doesn't look like great value.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
I wonder if we might not first see *eastern* Europe (in the EU) collaborating sufficiently to be far greater than the sum of its parts. Russia is a significant motivator in that regard.
I don't think people are thinking through the consequences of the Ukraine war for Russia. It is not only no longer a great power, it is not a military power at all. Its army and air force have been destroyed in Ukraine, they do not have the technological base to replace what has been lost, we are seeing a country which is dependent upon the industrial prowess of Iran and mercenaries to be able to wage war at all. It's pathetic.
I accept that for so long as they can sell raw materials abroad it doesn't always have to be like this. But it will be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, a much more likely scenario than Russia invading anywhere else is the breakup of Russia itself with the minority nations, who have borne by far the brunt of this war, breaking off from Russia in a similar pattern to what we saw at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The scary bit is that the lesson these new countries will have learned from Ukraine is never give up your nuclear warheads.
All that is correct for as long as Ukraine has the means to defend itself. And that requires significant US intervention. Should that end, everything changes - and probably pretty quickly.
It's too late for Russia. They have still lost most of their more modern tanks and are burning their way through their recycled wreaks. They have lost most of their fighter aircraft and never been able to establish air superiority. They have used up their stocks of more sophisticated missiles and don't have access to the chips to make new ones. They have lost most of their more modern artillery, their helicopters and support vehicles.
I accept that if a GOP dominated US cuts off the supply of weapons the current offensives would run out of steam pretty quickly and it is unlikely Ukraine would be able to drive Russia out but that is very different from saying Russia would win. They have already lost.
Russia has taken an absolute battering, their forces are shown to be brutal yet inept, but the bear isn’t quite finished yet
eg they were meant to have run out of drones by now, the drones they need to deprive Ukes of energy. Yet still they drone Ukraine - as of this morning 4.5m Ukes are without power. November 4
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
I volunteer to invent a Time Machine. I’ll go back to the 00s and get the producer of Apprentice to book Bloomberg over Trump. Before I go home , I’ll also have a word in the ear of the producer of HIGNFY.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
I'm not actually that worried about Trump, oddly. I think the only way he would win is if he's up against Harris or Clinton, and I don't think either is very likely. And now he's out of office he has no levers to pull as he did last time to attempt a coup. Meanwhile, everyone will be watching for any sign of trouble which will constrain his actions while he rants on Twitter.
The much bigger worry is somebody like de Santis or Lake, who have Trump's fascist tendencies in equal measure but sufficient poise and polish to come across as sane. They could easily win and do much more damage to American democracy without anyone noticing.
Let's assume Biden runs again. I think he'll probably win. But he needs to avoid Obama's mistake and pick a Vice President who will be able to take over from him, possibly during the term, to keep the Republicans out in 2024.
The question is, who would that be? I know everyone talks about Buttigieg. But actually I wonder if Ossoff wouldn't be the smarter choice.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
The most likely trigger for major disorder is if it he doesn't win but claims he did and urges his voters onto the streets. A small Biden win is probably the most combustable result.
Can’t quite see how that would work. The current Supreme Court is quite capable of striking a federal law down on the grounds it’s not in the Constitution and therefore is a state matter.
Would probably help with future elections - blocking the will of the people, etc.
Don’t see it, frankly. If the Republicans frame it as defending the Constitution it might have the opposite effect, the way that in 1860 the Republicans were willing to guarantee the continuance of slavery where it already existed to avoid that charge from the Democrats.
For some unfathomable reason, despite the fact it’s manifestly shit and about 300 years out of date, the Americans love their constitution. I’d say it’s the single biggest problem in America right now, given its disastrous effects.
There's actually not that much wrong with the thing, other than the difficulty of amending it.
And I think it's foolish to think that the current incarnation of the US right wouldn't find ways to subvert a more rationally designed system.
The guns, the delayed transition, the weak federal system, the slow process of change, the status of Washington DC...
The two term limit that bars Obama and opened the door to Trump. Btw surely if Trump ‘won’ in 2020 surely he also cannot stand again.
Actually I wouldn't agree about the two term limit. Yes, it stopped Obama running again, but it would also have stopped Trump, had he won in 2020, from running again as well. And merely because Obama looked an OK candidate in 2016 doesn't mean he would have continued to do so. Thatcher looked OK in 1987.
It's also worth remembering that wasn't the original plan, merely a convention, until Roosevelt trampled all over it by getting himself elected four times.
The real mistake there isn't term limits, it was the deranged decision of the parties to select Trump and Clinton as candidates. And that partly stems from problems elsewhere, particularly in the Constitution but also in the economy, that are pushing both parties to the extremes, but mostly comes from Clinton's egomania and refusal to accept that she was a terrible candidate who would almost certainly lose and Trump being - well, Trump.
H Clinton won the popular vote.
And if she had instead concentrated on campaigning to win the electoral college rather than preaching to her choir, perhaps she wouldn't have lost the election.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
I volunteer to invent a Time Machine. I’ll go back to the 00s and get the producer of Apprentice to book Bloomberg over Trump. Before I go home , I’ll also have a word in the ear of the producer of HIGNFY.
Now be fair. Hat Trick could hardly have done more to show Johnson was a disorganised, ignorant twat.
It's not their fault people didn't get the message.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
I volunteer to invent a Time Machine. I’ll go back to the 00s and get the producer of Apprentice to book Bloomberg over Trump. Before I go home , I’ll also have a word in the ear of the producer of HIGNFY.
Droll
But a serious attempt to answer the question would be enlightening. The idea of a 2nd Trump Presidency makes me shudder. I suspect American democracy would survive it, but I can’t be totally sure
Others are more fearful still. You, perhaps? So how far would you go to stop this nightmare from unfolding?
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
I volunteer to invent a Time Machine. I’ll go back to the 00s and get the producer of Apprentice to book Bloomberg over Trump. Before I go home , I’ll also have a word in the ear of the producer of HIGNFY.
Droll
But a serious attempt to answer the question would be enlightening. The idea of a 2nd Trump Presidency makes me shudder. I suspect American democracy would survive it, but I can’t be totally sure
Others are more fearful still. You, perhaps? So how far would you go to stop this nightmare from unfolding?
I find it fascinating that two decisions in tv production changed the course of world history.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
I volunteer to invent a Time Machine. I’ll go back to the 00s and get the producer of Apprentice to book Bloomberg over Trump. Before I go home , I’ll also have a word in the ear of the producer of HIGNFY.
Can you buy me 100,000 Apple shares while you're there please?
There seems to be a new variation on the hemline index which will be henceforth known as Rishi’s breeks. I expect him to be in hot pants by 2024 which should please at least one PBer.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
I volunteer to invent a Time Machine. I’ll go back to the 00s and get the producer of Apprentice to book Bloomberg over Trump. Before I go home , I’ll also have a word in the ear of the producer of HIGNFY.
Droll
But a serious attempt to answer the question would be enlightening. The idea of a 2nd Trump Presidency makes me shudder. I suspect American democracy would survive it, but I can’t be totally sure
Others are more fearful still. You, perhaps? So how far would you go to stop this nightmare from unfolding?
I find it fascinating that two decisions in tv production changed the course of world history.
hignfy has also featured Alan Duncan, Jess Phillips and Sadiq Khan. It hasn't had the same effect for them.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
I'm not actually that worried about Trump, oddly. I think the only way he would win is if he's up against Harris or Clinton, and I don't think either is very likely. And now he's out of office he has no levers to pull as he did last time to attempt a coup. Meanwhile, everyone will be watching for any sign of trouble which will constrain his actions while he rants on Twitter.
The much bigger worry is somebody like de Santis or Lake, who have Trump's fascist tendencies in equal measure but sufficient poise and polish to come across as sane. They could easily win and do much more damage to American democracy without anyone noticing.
Let's assume Biden runs again. I think he'll probably win. But he needs to avoid Obama's mistake and pick a Vice President who will be able to take over from him, possibly during the term, to keep the Republicans out in 2024.
The question is, who would that be? I know everyone talks about Buttigieg. But actually I wonder if Ossoff wouldn't be the smarter choice.
De Santis is not a “Trumpite fascist”. Kari Lake, dunno. She was an Obama backer a few years ago. I suspect she’s doing much of this out of naked careerism - right now the way ahead for ambitious Republicans is to harness the Trump energy
Her race in Arizona has tightened however, and she could easily lose, rendering all this moot
Is this the most consequential US mid term election in memory? Feels that way
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
I wonder if we might not first see *eastern* Europe (in the EU) collaborating sufficiently to be far greater than the sum of its parts. Russia is a significant motivator in that regard.
I don't think people are thinking through the consequences of the Ukraine war for Russia. It is not only no longer a great power, it is not a military power at all. Its army and air force have been destroyed in Ukraine, they do not have the technological base to replace what has been lost, we are seeing a country which is dependent upon the industrial prowess of Iran and mercenaries to be able to wage war at all. It's pathetic.
I accept that for so long as they can sell raw materials abroad it doesn't always have to be like this. But it will be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, a much more likely scenario than Russia invading anywhere else is the breakup of Russia itself with the minority nations, who have borne by far the brunt of this war, breaking off from Russia in a similar pattern to what we saw at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The scary bit is that the lesson these new countries will have learned from Ukraine is never give up your nuclear warheads.
All that is correct for as long as Ukraine has the means to defend itself. And that requires significant US intervention. Should that end, everything changes - and probably pretty quickly.
It's too late for Russia. They have still lost most of their more modern tanks and are burning their way through their recycled wreaks. They have lost most of their fighter aircraft and never been able to establish air superiority. They have used up their stocks of more sophisticated missiles and don't have access to the chips to make new ones. They have lost most of their more modern artillery, their helicopters and support vehicles.
I accept that if a GOP dominated US cuts off the supply of weapons the current offensives would run out of steam pretty quickly and it is unlikely Ukraine would be able to drive Russia out but that is very different from saying Russia would win. They have already lost.
Russia has taken an absolute battering, their forces are shown to be brutal yet inept, but the bear isn’t quite finished yet
eg they were meant to have run out of drones by now, the drones they need to deprive Ukes of energy. Yet still they drone Ukraine - as of this morning 4.5m Ukes are without power. November 4
Iranian drones. The Ukrainians have shown exceptional courage and cohesion. They have mainly been armed with NATO cast offs, systems the west were going to scrap for better replacements. They have, thanks to the UK, received a fair bit of NATO level training and the results against an army of the 80s has been every bit as devastating as the US combined arms tactics were against the Iraqi national guard at the time of the Gulf wars.
If Russia was taking on fully armed, equipped and trained NATO forces from a country such as Poland, for example, they would be massacred. They do not have the industrial base to rebuild their forces. They can buy abroad but it will take a very long time for them to reassemble the kit they have lost and a lot of money to train their forces to actually use it.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
I'm not actually that worried about Trump, oddly. I think the only way he would win is if he's up against Harris or Clinton, and I don't think either is very likely. And now he's out of office he has no levers to pull as he did last time to attempt a coup. Meanwhile, everyone will be watching for any sign of trouble which will constrain his actions while he rants on Twitter.
The much bigger worry is somebody like de Santis or Lake, who have Trump's fascist tendencies in equal measure but sufficient poise and polish to come across as sane. They could easily win and do much more damage to American democracy without anyone noticing.
Let's assume Biden runs again. I think he'll probably win. But he needs to avoid Obama's mistake and pick a Vice President who will be able to take over from him, possibly during the term, to keep the Republicans out in 2024.
The question is, who would that be? I know everyone talks about Buttigieg. But actually I wonder if Ossoff wouldn't be the smarter choice.
De Santis is not a “Trumpite fascist”. Kari Lake, dunno. She was an Obama backer a few years ago. I suspect she’s doing much of this out of naked careerism - right now the way ahead for ambitious Republicans is to harness the Trump energy
Her race in Arizona has tightened however, and she could easily lose, rendering all this moot
Is this the most consequential US mid term election in memory? Feels that way
Trump was a Democrat a few years ago as well, doesn't mean he's not a fascist now...
(Edit - and your remarks on de Santis rather prove my point.)
And Afghanistan's fielding has been pretty average. First a drop off Marsh - ok, not straightforward but it should have been taken - and now a simple misfield concedes a four.
The politics of the Ukraine war, in the USA, are very wierd.
The most unexpected people are for and against the war, for and against arming Ukraine, and a surprising number on all political sides can’t see it as anything but a US domestic spending issue. A surprising number also think the West should bow to nuclear blackmail, rather than stand up to the madman.
Very few commentators understand that most of the billions of dollars in military aid, has come from existing stocks at book values. The actual American money spent this year in Ukraine has been a tiny fraction of the numbers announced by Biden.
It’s not that strange. The Americans did not act immediately against Hitler’s aggression. It took nimble political footwork on the part of FDR to support us before Pearl Harbor.
But Russia is always banging on about challenging the US (even they aren't attack us as a proxy), that usually is enough to get the patriotic juices flowing.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
I'm not actually that worried about Trump, oddly. I think the only way he would win is if he's up against Harris or Clinton, and I don't think either is very likely. And now he's out of office he has no levers to pull as he did last time to attempt a coup. Meanwhile, everyone will be watching for any sign of trouble which will constrain his actions while he rants on Twitter.
The much bigger worry is somebody like de Santis or Lake, who have Trump's fascist tendencies in equal measure but sufficient poise and polish to come across as sane. They could easily win and do much more damage to American democracy without anyone noticing.
Let's assume Biden runs again. I think he'll probably win. But he needs to avoid Obama's mistake and pick a Vice President who will be able to take over from him, possibly during the term, to keep the Republicans out in 2024.
The question is, who would that be? I know everyone talks about Buttigieg. But actually I wonder if Ossoff wouldn't be the smarter choice.
De Santis is not a “Trumpite fascist”. Kari Lake, dunno. She was an Obama backer a few years ago. I suspect she’s doing much of this out of naked careerism - right now the way ahead for ambitious Republicans is to harness the Trump energy
Her race in Arizona has tightened however, and she could easily lose, rendering all this moot
Is this the most consequential US mid term election in memory? Feels that way
Certainly looks that way because so many of the more down ticket GOP runners are trying to win in order to be in a position to rig the 2024 election for Trump.
This is another likely source of violent disorder: GOP people at state house level overturning voting in some states and imposing Trump as the winner.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
I volunteer to invent a Time Machine. I’ll go back to the 00s and get the producer of Apprentice to book Bloomberg over Trump. Before I go home , I’ll also have a word in the ear of the producer of HIGNFY.
Droll
But a serious attempt to answer the question would be enlightening. The idea of a 2nd Trump Presidency makes me shudder. I suspect American democracy would survive it, but I can’t be totally sure
Others are more fearful still. You, perhaps? So how far would you go to stop this nightmare from unfolding?
I find it fascinating that two decisions in tv production changed the course of world history.
hignfy has also featured Alan Duncan, Jess Phillips and Sadiq Khan. It hasn't had the same effect for them.
There's definitely a steady climb in the Conservative vote. Still miles behind obviously but we're starting to get back toward 1997 territory rather than Canada 93.
Just makes his days of faffing about more pointless, since it was obvious early on he might get there but not be close to Sunak, so why take so long and why send out people quoting him about not backing out?
I think some were asking how to beat 10% inflation with their savings the other day.
One answer: back a Republican Majority in the House of Representatives at 1.1 on Betfair. You get a 10% return on your cash (less a bit of commission) in just a few working days.
They only need six gains to take the House over the 2020 elections (they even advanced when all the Dems turned out for Biden in the presidential) and all the polls are pointing to a clear win, and maybe even a blowout. It's probably a 90%+ chance (not 100%, so DYOR) but nothing is really a 100% chance - not even an cash ISA.
I've stuck a grand on because the profit will pay for a nice family meal out we'd otherwise not have. Obviously, don't put your whole life savings in it. Be sensible. But this is as clear as it gets.
Except not all the polls are pointing to a clear win. Just looking at the latest polls on 538 I see several Democrat leads - the very latest poll on there is D +7
Sure Republicans are fairly strong favorites, but 1.1 doesn't seem like much value. It would only take an average polling error of less than 2% in the right ditection to see Democrats hold on in the house.
There's got to be over 50% chance of a polling error at least that big. Even if you think any polling error is 80% likely to be the other way, 1.1 still doesn't look like great value.
Just makes his days of faffing about more pointless, since it was obvious early on he might get there but not be close to Sunak, so why take so long and why send out people quoting him about not backing out?
Things changed when he got the offer he couldn't refuse.
Can’t quite see how that would work. The current Supreme Court is quite capable of striking a federal law down on the grounds it’s not in the Constitution and therefore is a state matter.
Would probably help with future elections - blocking the will of the people, etc.
Don’t see it, frankly. If the Republicans frame it as defending the Constitution it might have the opposite effect, the way that in 1860 the Republicans were willing to guarantee the continuance of slavery where it already existed to avoid that charge from the Democrats.
For some unfathomable reason, despite the fact it’s manifestly shit and about 300 years out of date, the Americans love their constitution. I’d say it’s the single biggest problem in America right now, given its disastrous effects.
There's actually not that much wrong with the thing, other than the difficulty of amending it.
And I think it's foolish to think that the current incarnation of the US right wouldn't find ways to subvert a more rationally designed system.
Agreed - the exact form of political dysfunction may be shared by the constitutional set up, but when it gets this fractious and bitter the words on the page probably don't matter as much.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
I volunteer to invent a Time Machine. I’ll go back to the 00s and get the producer of Apprentice to book Bloomberg over Trump. Before I go home , I’ll also have a word in the ear of the producer of HIGNFY.
Droll
But a serious attempt to answer the question would be enlightening. The idea of a 2nd Trump Presidency makes me shudder. I suspect American democracy would survive it, but I can’t be totally sure
Others are more fearful still. You, perhaps? So how far would you go to stop this nightmare from unfolding?
Trump 2.0 will be a catastrophe for the US and the wider world. He is the greatest threat to the republic since the Civil War, without a doubt.
But it is far from all about him and his mad demagogue persona. What's utterly depressing is that vast numbers of US voters no longer want to live in a democracy if it means the other side sometimes win. Perhaps that is the even great threat than Trump himself. Will this anti-democracy yearning continue if he's not around?
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
If Trump wins the election fairly, how on earth can that be construed as the end of US democracy?
Not too far from where we live there is a village with a big red poppy on every lamppost. Great use of money, that. And, in another diection, a giant poppy in lights on a tractor trailer in a field next to the road. I haven't seen it lit up in all its glory, but it looks exceedingly naff in daytime.
Poppies are fine. I generally buy one (or donate, if in person they seem to insist on taking the poppy too). The RBL do some great things. They were very helpful to my grandmother, for reasons I never really understood (no direct connection to armed forces, but they did more in practical help in her final years than any other charity). I don't tend to bother to wear it nowadays because, given it has almost become compulsory in public life, I feel that it has lost all meaning.
It really, really should be personal choice.
ETA: Dubious news source, though - Yorkshire live. The Yorkies have form on demonising red flowers
Just makes his days of faffing about more pointless, since it was obvious early on he might get there but not be close to Sunak, so why take so long and why send out people quoting him about not backing out?
Perhaps we should consider the possibility that Kermit the Frog is not the only muppet involved in his career?
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
If Trump wins the election fairly, how on earth can that be construed as the end of US democracy?
That depends on what he does with the power when (if) he gets it. I'm sure you don't need some examples from history?
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
The solution is a European defensive alliance that isn't part of the EU's silly CFSP and the Brussels machinery in its quest to become a superstate.
Set up a new European NATO and govern it through the EPU at intergovernmental level.
Such an arrangement would be basically the EU plus Norway and UK. Of course the EU would be in the driving seat.
I am not sure that is right. I would say it's much more likely that it would be a triumvirate of the UK and France, as nuclear powers, and Germany, as the biggest spenders, plus central and eastern European countries, and the Nordics. A lot of EU member states will be peripheral. It really doesn't matter what Portugal, Greece, the Netherlands or Belgium contribute. Even Spain and Italy will be secondary - except - perhaps - with regards to the Med.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
If you think America under the Republicans is unreliable, France under Le Pen or Italy under their neo-Commies or neo-Fascists would be much worse. And neither country can remotely offer the capabilities and deep pockets that America can. Remember the Kraut idea of military aid was 5,000 helmets and the Frogs, well, are Frogs. America is simply irreplaceable.
Then Putin wins. It's as simple as that.
Indeed. History will look back at this moment and shudder. It wasn’t inevitable.
Very nervous times in Kyiv. It's not just that America might go isolationist, the number which actively support Putinist tropes seems much higher than in W. Europe, as well as much closer to power.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
If Trump wins the election fairly, how on earth can that be construed as the end of US democracy?
It's a strange kind of logic that goes: 1. We must defend democracy 2. Trump has won a democratic* election 3. We must therefore overthrow Trump and end democracy to, um, protect democracy
*imperfect, of course, but broadly democratic and most of the problems long existing
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
If Trump wins the election fairly, how on earth can that be construed as the end of US democracy?
Because he can then put people in place to remove most of the checks and balances that keep the US a democracy, so future elections become Putin-esque. And anyone following the evidence knows he started doing this last time and wanted to do more of it.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
If Trump wins the election fairly, how on earth can that be construed as the end of US democracy?
That depends on what he does with the power when (if) he gets it. I'm sure you don't need some examples from history?
Don't think we need history. Putin and Chavez/Maduro both spring to mind, and they're both still around. Orban and Erdogan as well.
Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.
Heard it here first.
Given they have made an arse of it for 12 years, what are the chances. They are too fearty to do anything radical and the system is so fcuked up nearly everybody gets to stay, so unless they jsut open teh doors I do not see Tories making any progress on that one. More likely they will run out of 5 star hotels first.
Barring a truly astonishing collapse you would expect them to get 200 from here.
If Marsh and Stoinis stay together would be more.
Edit - why don't the ICC pay me to commentate?
Australia will win fairly easily but NZ have guaranteed their place in the top 2. If England beat Sri Lanka Australia are almost certainly out. I don't think it is possible for them to catch up the difference in NRR.
I have been bewildered that Stonis has come out so far down the order for Aus. He is surely the form batter of the whole tournament.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
If Trump wins the election fairly, how on earth can that be construed as the end of US democracy?
It's a strange kind of logic that goes: 1. We must defend democracy 2. Trump has won a democratic* election 3. We must therefore overthrow Trump and end democracy to, um, protect democracy
*imperfect, of course, but broadly democratic and most of the problems long existing
Criminals should be tried and convicted regardless of whether they win elections or not.
Not too far from where we live there is a village with a big red poppy on every lamppost. Great use of money, that. And, in another diection, a giant poppy in lights on a tractor trailer in a field next to the road. I haven't seen it lit up in all its glory, but it looks exceedingly naff in daytime.
Poppies are fine. I generally buy one (or donate, if in person they seem to insist on taking the poppy too). The RBL do some great things. They were very helpful to my grandmother, for reasons I never really understood (no direct connection to armed forces, but they did more in practical help in her final years than any other charity). I don't tend to bother to wear it nowadays because, given it has almost become compulsory in public life, I feel that it has lost all meaning.
It really, really should be personal choice.
I did wear a poppy in 2020 (on the grounds we were all locked down) and I've not worn one since and will not wear one again.
It is my personal choice at the armed forces continuing refusal to invade France.
Sunak gets to high 30s and a hung parliament if he solves the boats.
Heard it here first.
Given they have made an arse of it for 12 years, what are the chances. They are too fearty to do anything radical and the system is so fcuked up nearly everybody gets to stay, so unless they jsut open teh doors I do not see Tories making any progress on that one. More likely they will run out of 5 star hotels first.
If Sunak solves the boats he deserves fast track beatification, given it would be a bona fide miracle
Not too far from where we live there is a village with a big red poppy on every lamppost. Great use of money, that. And, in another diection, a giant poppy in lights on a tractor trailer in a field next to the road. I haven't seen it lit up in all its glory, but it looks exceedingly naff in daytime.
Poppies are fine. I generally buy one (or donate, if in person they seem to insist on taking the poppy too). The RBL do some great things. They were very helpful to my grandmother, for reasons I never really understood (no direct connection to armed forces, but they did more in practical help in her final years than any other charity). I don't tend to bother to wear it nowadays because, given it has almost become compulsory in public life, I feel that it has lost all meaning.
It really, really should be personal choice.
I did wear a poppy in 2020 (on the grounds we were all locked down) and I've not worn one since and will not wear one again.
It is my personal choice at the armed forces continuing refusal to invade France.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
I wonder if we might not first see *eastern* Europe (in the EU) collaborating sufficiently to be far greater than the sum of its parts. Russia is a significant motivator in that regard.
I don't think people are thinking through the consequences of the Ukraine war for Russia. It is not only no longer a great power, it is not a military power at all. Its army and air force have been destroyed in Ukraine, they do not have the technological base to replace what has been lost, we are seeing a country which is dependent upon the industrial prowess of Iran and mercenaries to be able to wage war at all. It's pathetic.
I accept that for so long as they can sell raw materials abroad it doesn't always have to be like this. But it will be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, a much more likely scenario than Russia invading anywhere else is the breakup of Russia itself with the minority nations, who have borne by far the brunt of this war, breaking off from Russia in a similar pattern to what we saw at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The scary bit is that the lesson these new countries will have learned from Ukraine is never give up your nuclear warheads.
All that is correct for as long as Ukraine has the means to defend itself. And that requires significant US intervention. Should that end, everything changes - and probably pretty quickly.
It's too late for Russia. They have still lost most of their more modern tanks and are burning their way through their recycled wreaks. They have lost most of their fighter aircraft and never been able to establish air superiority. They have used up their stocks of more sophisticated missiles and don't have access to the chips to make new ones. They have lost most of their more modern artillery, their helicopters and support vehicles.
I accept that if a GOP dominated US cuts off the supply of weapons the current offensives would run out of steam pretty quickly and it is unlikely Ukraine would be able to drive Russia out but that is very different from saying Russia would win. They have already lost.
I normally find your posts sensible and well argued David but you appear to be guilty of a bit of hyperbole with the "they have lost most of their fighter aircraft" claim.
Oryx has the Russians losing 263 combat aircraft; any way you look at it they had several thousand or more to start.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
If you think America under the Republicans is unreliable, France under Le Pen or Italy under their neo-Commies or neo-Fascists would be much worse. And neither country can remotely offer the capabilities and deep pockets that America can. Remember the Kraut idea of military aid was 5,000 helmets and the Frogs, well, are Frogs. America is simply irreplaceable.
Then Putin wins. It's as simple as that.
Indeed. History will look back at this moment and shudder. It wasn’t inevitable.
Very nervous times in Kyiv. It's not just that America might go isolationist, the number which actively support Putinist tropes seems much higher than in W. Europe, as well as much closer to power.
It's weird how many of the Russian trolls like to mention WEF as the new Rothschild puppet masters of a decadent West.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
If Trump wins the election fairly, how on earth can that be construed as the end of US democracy?
It's a strange kind of logic that goes: 1. We must defend democracy 2. Trump has won a democratic* election 3. We must therefore overthrow Trump and end democracy to, um, protect democracy
*imperfect, of course, but broadly democratic and most of the problems long existing
Criminals should be tried and convicted regardless of whether they win elections or not.
Sure. But if the criminal justice system fails to do that, then he should be free to stand and win (horrifying as that would be).
Once elected, the only route would be impeachment, right?
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
If Trump wins the election fairly, how on earth can that be construed as the end of US democracy?
You've stated that before. But it is quite possible for someone to win an election and then set about eroding democratic norms and systems to such an extent as to end its status as a proper democracy. Several current dictators or autocratic leaders have done so when cementing their power.
Now, people may disagee to the extent Trump would do such a thing, or whether he even wants or could achieve dictator level like that.
But we know from many statements he would at the least like to seek changes to permit people he supports to overturn results he does not like, he's expressed that many times, so the fears to democracy are not groundless even if they are not as high as some fear.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
If Trump wins the election fairly, how on earth can that be construed as the end of US democracy?
It's a strange kind of logic that goes: 1. We must defend democracy 2. Trump has won a democratic* election 3. We must therefore overthrow Trump and end democracy to, um, protect democracy
*imperfect, of course, but broadly democratic and most of the problems long existing
That’s the paradox I’m trying to tease out
A lot of Americans sincerely believe Trump is Evil Incarnate. I don’t go that far, but I can see why the Donald is feared and loathed
If the Devil is about to win an election, what do you do?
The outlook is bleak for so many and now we hear that Trump could be the POTUS and it makes one despair for the future
It looks like Sunak/ Hunt are about to deliver a tax raising budget that would just as easily been delivered by Rachel Reeves
I notice that in Scotland Sturgeon is offering a 7% rise to NHS staff but taking the cost from NHS investment in services
The fact is there is only so much money and all governments will be forced into impossible choices
Cheer up Big_G, it's rarely as bad as we fear.
Btw raising tax is not an impossible choice. Unpalatable maybe but inevitable now. Covid + Ukraine have been bad luck, sure, but we just have to stump up and pay for it as a nation. And I suspect you and I can afford to pay a bit more than those on low wages and Universal Credit.
I think some were asking how to beat 10% inflation with their savings the other day.
One answer: back a Republican Majority in the House of Representatives at 1.1 on Betfair. You get a 10% return on your cash (less a bit of commission) in just a few working days.
They only need six gains to take the House over the 2020 elections (they even advanced when all the Dems turned out for Biden in the presidential) and all the polls are pointing to a clear win, and maybe even a blowout. It's probably a 90%+ chance (not 100%, so DYOR) but nothing is really a 100% chance - not even an cash ISA.
I've stuck a grand on because the profit will pay for a nice family meal out we'd otherwise not have. Obviously, don't put your whole life savings in it. Be sensible. But this is as clear as it gets.
Except not all the polls are pointing to a clear win. Just looking at the latest polls on 538 I see several Democrat leads - the very latest poll on there is D +7
Sure Republicans are fairly strong favorites, but 1.1 doesn't seem like much value. It would only take an average polling error of less than 2% in the right ditection to see Democrats hold on in the house.
There's got to be over 50% chance of a polling error at least that big. Even if you think any polling error is 80% likely to be the other way, 1.1 still doesn't look like great value.
For as long as Biden is in the White House, it will be fine. It's if he is replaced in January 2025 by Trump or another Republican that everything will change. The implications of that not only for Ukraine, but for NATO as a whole, are huge.
As it is at least a 50% chance, and quite possibly higher, that the GOP takes the presidency next time around, the UK and the rest of Europe really need to start thinking about it now - and working out how they will react. Of course, that will not happen. So, that is when Putin wins.
The fact that the US is no longer an entirely reliable ally - and is unlikely ever to be so again - has huge consequences for the whole of Europe that cannot be solved unless the whole of Europe works closely together. It is, quite frankly, terrifying!
Another geopolitical benefit chalked up to the master stroke that is Brexit. The weakening of European relations at the time we need them most.
This is too serious for Brexit knockabout. Unless European countries work together on defence in a way that does not depend on the Americans, we are always going to be at the mercy of the whims of whoever is in charge in the Kremlin - and Ukraine is likely to pay the consequences as soon as the GOP takes control of the White House.
The UK, France and Germany have to find a way to work together - and to convince the countries of central and eastern Europe that we are serious about doing so. Anything else is a total failure of leadership. Throwing blame around, as I am sure will happen on here and elsewhere, is entirely pointless. It will not solve the problem.
I am less than optimistic.
Yup. You’re right to be pessimistic. The idea of Western Europe collaborating sufficiently to be greater than the sum of its parts seems further away than ever.
I wonder if we might not first see *eastern* Europe (in the EU) collaborating sufficiently to be far greater than the sum of its parts. Russia is a significant motivator in that regard.
I don't think people are thinking through the consequences of the Ukraine war for Russia. It is not only no longer a great power, it is not a military power at all. Its army and air force have been destroyed in Ukraine, they do not have the technological base to replace what has been lost, we are seeing a country which is dependent upon the industrial prowess of Iran and mercenaries to be able to wage war at all. It's pathetic.
I accept that for so long as they can sell raw materials abroad it doesn't always have to be like this. But it will be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, a much more likely scenario than Russia invading anywhere else is the breakup of Russia itself with the minority nations, who have borne by far the brunt of this war, breaking off from Russia in a similar pattern to what we saw at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The scary bit is that the lesson these new countries will have learned from Ukraine is never give up your nuclear warheads.
All that is correct for as long as Ukraine has the means to defend itself. And that requires significant US intervention. Should that end, everything changes - and probably pretty quickly.
It's too late for Russia. They have still lost most of their more modern tanks and are burning their way through their recycled wreaks. They have lost most of their fighter aircraft and never been able to establish air superiority. They have used up their stocks of more sophisticated missiles and don't have access to the chips to make new ones. They have lost most of their more modern artillery, their helicopters and support vehicles.
I accept that if a GOP dominated US cuts off the supply of weapons the current offensives would run out of steam pretty quickly and it is unlikely Ukraine would be able to drive Russia out but that is very different from saying Russia would win. They have already lost.
I normally find your posts sensible and well argued David but you appear to be guilty of a bit of hyperbole with the "they have lost most of their fighter aircraft" claim.
Oryx has the Russians losing 263 combat aircraft; any way you look at it they had several thousand or more to start.
The air superiority issue is more about the strength of (both sides) air defences, rather than aircraft numbers or losses.
The real issue is how many of those planes are capable of flying. If it was more than a smallish percentage they would be flying now over Ukraine, or at least being used to fire missiles remotely. The Russian armed forces have Potemkin like qualities, worn down by corruption and incompetence to well below their paper strength. The Special Military Operation has exposed the reality.
Not too far from where we live there is a village with a big red poppy on every lamppost. Great use of money, that. And, in another diection, a giant poppy in lights on a tractor trailer in a field next to the road. I haven't seen it lit up in all its glory, but it looks exceedingly naff in daytime.
Poppies are fine. I generally buy one (or donate, if in person they seem to insist on taking the poppy too). The RBL do some great things. They were very helpful to my grandmother, for reasons I never really understood (no direct connection to armed forces, but they did more in practical help in her final years than any other charity). I don't tend to bother to wear it nowadays because, given it has almost become compulsory in public life, I feel that it has lost all meaning.
It really, really should be personal choice.
I did wear a poppy in 2020 (on the grounds we were all locked down) and I've not worn one since and will not wear one again.
It is my personal choice at the armed forces continuing refusal to invade France.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
If Trump wins the election fairly, how on earth can that be construed as the end of US democracy?
It's a strange kind of logic that goes: 1. We must defend democracy 2. Trump has won a democratic* election 3. We must therefore overthrow Trump and end democracy to, um, protect democracy
*imperfect, of course, but broadly democratic and most of the problems long existing
Criminals should be tried and convicted regardless of whether they win elections or not.
I find the 'have to settle things by the ballot box' argument that sometimes get made a really weird one. It's not even just Republicans who make it, yet in the context it gets made it really is an argument of immunity not just for those who hold office, but who have held office or might in future hold office again.
This evening is an interesting case study. 2.3gw of wind power vs 17.4gw of gas, because it’s dark and cold but quite calm.
4x current installed wind capacity and we’d be generating 10gw, a third of our total demand even now in very unfavourable conditions. There is ample room on the seabed for 4x current capacity, and much more besides.
And when it is very windy and we have too much cheap energy?
As if people think that's a problem!
Having too much cheap energy, and having issues wondering what to do with it, is a far better "problem" to solve than having extremely expensive energy. And can also allow a relocation of industry here. Heavy industry that can scale up to take advantage when there is abundant cheap energy, and scale down there is not, can be a productive and efficient export opportunity. Countries with ample hydro etc resources can already have businesses operating this way.
It's not a problem 'having too much cheap energy'; the problem is that people who build and own wind farms expect to make a profit, therefore when their energy is too much for the grid (at the point where it joins the grid) they get paid to switch off. This guarantees their profits and is the number 1 reason for the wind farm boom. You know this, and yet you continue to make fatuous, specious statements like the above, for reasons unclear to me.
If the Government owned all the windfarms, then building a huge overcapacity of them so that we'd have plenty of power if there was so much as a breeze in the Outer Hebrides, and if there were too much wind, they'd switch off with no penalty, would make some sort of abstract sense. But it doesn't. Therefore, at some point, constraint payments must end, or the whole thing is a financial timebomb.
Its the Lib Dem figure that I don't get, with the tories in the 20s how are they in single figures?
I guess because something becomes a norm once it has been a trend for a period of time, but it isn't fixed forever. There are reasons things happen that happen a lot, if the reasons change they won't happen. Must not fall into the HYUFD trap of it has always happened so predicts it will continue to happen when the reason for it happening has changed.
I would put it down to the lack of profile in the media due to multiple factors, SNP being the 3rd party is one and remember their core vote is very small. Hopefully (from my point of view) that will change due to by elections or the locals or when the GE campaign starts, but I'm not convinced.
Comments
European militaries have no choice but to step up, and right now there’s a good opportunity to make it happen, because everyone can see the mad bear walking towards Europe.
The news report itself records Brady as saying "...Sir Graham said "two candidates" had reached the threshold, and "one of them decided not to then submit his nomination"."
Which may or may not be the same thing!
edit/ Although I guess that "his" is a significant clue!
Which takes us right back to my original prediction that he was *persuaded* not to stand!
They never get it right, do they? From one extreme to the other...
https://twitter.com/HUncaring/status/1539004459212230658?t=Hq2oGhcW5HhtT8z9yLLs_A&s=19
I accept that for so long as they can sell raw materials abroad it doesn't always have to be like this. But it will be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, a much more likely scenario than Russia invading anywhere else is the breakup of Russia itself with the minority nations, who have borne by far the brunt of this war, breaking off from Russia in a similar pattern to what we saw at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The scary bit is that the lesson these new countries will have learned from Ukraine is never give up your nuclear warheads.
No wonder appeasers like Leon want Trump back and frottages himself senseless over Kari Lake.
Northern Ireland Secretary announces no Assembly Elections to take place in December
Possibly new legislation to give time for the UK and EU to agree the NIP
(*Apart from PennyMordaunt)
“Frots” not “frottages”, surely
Conservatives narrow gap by 11 in 2 weeks but Labour remain ahead by 20 points:
Lab 49% (-1)
Con 29% (+3)
LibDem 9% (-1)
Green 4% (-1)
SNP 4% (nc)
1,633 questioned 2-3 Nov. Changes with 26-27 Oct.
Data - http://www.technetracker.co.uk https://twitter.com/techneUK/status/1588441034291306503/photo/1
I accept that if a GOP dominated US cuts off the supply of weapons the current offensives would run out of steam pretty quickly and it is unlikely Ukraine would be able to drive Russia out but that is very different from saying Russia would win. They have already lost.
The EU needs to leave the ideology at home about its dream of a superstate if it wants strong European defence.
It's also worth remembering that wasn't the original plan, merely a convention, until Roosevelt trampled all over it by getting himself elected four times.
The real mistake there isn't term limits, it was the deranged decision of the parties to select Trump and Clinton as candidates. And that partly stems from problems elsewhere, particularly in the Constitution but also in the economy, that are pushing both parties to the extremes, but mostly comes from Clinton's egomania and refusal to accept that she was a terrible candidate who would almost certainly lose and Trump being - well, Trump.
A lot of Americans fear - justifiably - that Trump 2.0 could be the end of US democracy. By their own logic, that cannot be allowed to happen. Trump must be stopped. How far will they go to stop him?
How far would any of us go?
It'd be about who can deliver the hard power in military equipment and capability and the realpolitik of that would call the shots.
Just looking at the latest polls on 538 I see several Democrat leads - the very latest poll on there is D +7
Sure Republicans are fairly strong favorites, but 1.1 doesn't seem like much value. It would only take an average polling error of less than 2% in the right ditection to see Democrats hold on in the house.
There's got to be over 50% chance of a polling error at least that big. Even if you think any polling error is 80% likely to be the other way, 1.1 still doesn't look like great value.
eg they were meant to have run out of drones by now, the drones they need to deprive Ukes of energy. Yet still they drone Ukraine - as of this morning 4.5m Ukes are without power. November 4
The much bigger worry is somebody like de Santis or Lake, who have Trump's fascist tendencies in equal measure but sufficient poise and polish to come across as sane. They could easily win and do much more damage to American democracy without anyone noticing.
Let's assume Biden runs again. I think he'll probably win. But he needs to avoid Obama's mistake and pick a Vice President who will be able to take over from him, possibly during the term, to keep the Republicans out in 2024.
The question is, who would that be? I know everyone talks about Buttigieg. But actually I wonder if Ossoff wouldn't be the smarter choice.
It's not their fault people didn't get the message.
But a serious attempt to answer the question would be enlightening. The idea of a 2nd Trump Presidency makes me shudder. I suspect American democracy would survive it, but I can’t be totally sure
Others are more fearful still. You, perhaps? So how far would you go to stop this nightmare from unfolding?
Could this be a Beckham in a sarong moment?
Her race in Arizona has tightened however, and she could easily lose, rendering all this moot
Is this the most consequential US mid term election in memory? Feels that way
If Russia was taking on fully armed, equipped and trained NATO forces from a country such as Poland, for example, they would be massacred. They do not have the industrial base to rebuild their forces. They can buy abroad but it will take a very long time for them to reassemble the kit they have lost and a lot of money to train their forces to actually use it.
(Edit - and your remarks on de Santis rather prove my point.)
And Afghanistan's fielding has been pretty average. First a drop off Marsh - ok, not straightforward but it should have been taken - and now a simple misfield concedes a four.
Levelling up. Fat chance.
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/tv/strictly-come-dancings-janette-manrara-25420140
This is another likely source of violent disorder: GOP people at state house level overturning voting in some states and imposing Trump as the winner.
It looks like Sunak/ Hunt are about to deliver a tax raising budget that would just as easily been delivered by Rachel Reeves
I notice that in Scotland Sturgeon is offering a 7% rise to NHS staff but taking the cost from NHS investment in services
The fact is there is only so much money and all governments will be forced into impossible choices
Barring a truly astonishing collapse you would expect them to get 200 from here.
If Marsh and Stoinis stay together would be more.
Edit - why don't the ICC pay me to commentate?
But it is far from all about him and his mad demagogue persona. What's utterly depressing is that vast numbers of US voters no longer want to live in a democracy if it means the other side sometimes win. Perhaps that is the even great threat than Trump himself. Will this anti-democracy yearning continue if he's not around?
Poppies are fine. I generally buy one (or donate, if in person they seem to insist on taking the poppy too). The RBL do some great things. They were very helpful to my grandmother, for reasons I never really understood (no direct connection to armed forces, but they did more in practical help in her final years than any other charity). I don't tend to bother to wear it nowadays because, given it has almost become compulsory in public life, I feel that it has lost all meaning.
It really, really should be personal choice.
ETA: Dubious news source, though - Yorkshire live. The Yorkies have form on demonising red flowers
1. We must defend democracy
2. Trump has won a democratic* election
3. We must therefore overthrow Trump and end democracy to, um, protect democracy
*imperfect, of course, but broadly democratic and most of the problems long existing
I have been bewildered that Stonis has come out so far down the order for Aus. He is surely the form batter of the whole tournament.
It is my personal choice at the armed forces continuing refusal to invade France.
Oryx has the Russians losing 263 combat aircraft; any way you look at it they had several thousand or more to start.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/03/list-of-aircraft-losses-during-2022.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Air_Force_aircraft
The air superiority issue is more about the strength of (both sides) air defences, rather than aircraft numbers or losses.
Once elected, the only route would be impeachment, right?
Now, people may disagee to the extent Trump would do such a thing, or whether he even wants or could achieve dictator level like that.
But we know from many statements he would at the least like to seek changes to permit people he supports to overturn results he does not like, he's expressed that many times, so the fears to democracy are not groundless even if they are not as high as some fear.
A lot of Americans sincerely believe Trump is Evil Incarnate. I don’t go that far, but I can see why the Donald is feared and loathed
If the Devil is about to win an election, what do you do?
Cheer up Big_G, it's rarely as bad as we fear.
Btw raising tax is not an impossible choice. Unpalatable maybe but inevitable now. Covid + Ukraine have been bad luck, sure, but we just have to stump up and pay for it as a nation. And I suspect you and I can afford to pay a bit more than those on low wages and Universal Credit.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/generic-ballot/
It's from an outfit called Big Village.
The latest Ipsos has D +1
Latest YouGov is Even
Latest Morning Consult D+5
Some of these aren't Likely Voter polls, where Dems tend to do worse (eg latest Morning Consult Likely Voter poll is Even).
But not "all the polls" are pointing to a clear Republican win.
NB all figures taken from 538 listing, haven't double checked.
If the Government owned all the windfarms, then building a huge overcapacity of them so that we'd have plenty of power if there was so much as a breeze in the Outer Hebrides, and if there were too much wind, they'd switch off with no penalty, would make some sort of abstract sense. But it doesn't. Therefore, at some point, constraint payments must end, or the whole thing is a financial timebomb.
I would put it down to the lack of profile in the media due to multiple factors, SNP being the 3rd party is one and remember their core vote is very small. Hopefully (from my point of view) that will change due to by elections or the locals or when the GE campaign starts, but I'm not convinced.