The Russians seem to be directly targetting civilian evacuation points. Shells landed within a few hundred metres of the main meeting spot. No possible military targets anywhere near.
...A Ukrainian officer said to me on the record that the Russians are refusing to allow civilians on the side they control through checkpoints. However, he shot down rumours that Russians were shooting people trying to flee, saying they had no evidence.
Very difficult to get a true picture of whats happening now in this war. There are of course lies on both sides as one would expect.
Only one of these two countries has invaded and occupied the other's territory.
Yes but we still need to know what really going on. So sad to see cousins ukrainians and russians fighting like this with all the deaths. Breaks my heart. Imagine if the english were fighting the scottish and russia was arming the scottish as an analogy.
This is why we hold the apocalyptic Covenanter tank in reserve - makes the Challenger II look nice.
1) If a passenger plane crashes on the Ukraine / Republic of China border, which side do bury the survivors? 2) Pineapple on pizza. Warcrime? 3) Why is Nick Palmer a God?
On SKS and ending licenses for new oil projects, if not now, when?
When oil products are no long required, which might be never given how crucial they are for non-burning reasons.
You don't ban domestic licences for a product that is required and then import it instead and claim that is progress.
If we want to tackle climate change, we need to stop using oil and develop alternatives as a priority. But I agree with you that this is not a wise approach in achieving that goal
Close.
If we want to tackle climate change, we need to stop burning oil. Using oil for other means is less of an issue for climate change and can be handled in a carbon-neutral way. Oil is used for pharmaceuticals and other means - you might want to stop burning petrol in cars, but do you want to stop supplying medicines to the NHS?
Tackling demand for oil, especially when it comes to burning the stuff, is eminently reasonable. Tackling supply of it, solely by terminating domestic production but allowing unfettered imports to come into this country and be burnt instead, is not.
The Russians seem to be directly targetting civilian evacuation points. Shells landed within a few hundred metres of the main meeting spot. No possible military targets anywhere near.
...A Ukrainian officer said to me on the record that the Russians are refusing to allow civilians on the side they control through checkpoints. However, he shot down rumours that Russians were shooting people trying to flee, saying they had no evidence.
Very difficult to get a true picture of whats happening now in this war. There are of course lies on both sides as one would expect.
Only one of these two countries has invaded and occupied the other's territory.
Yes but we still need to know what really going on. So sad to see cousins ukrainians and russians fighting like this with all the deaths. Breaks my heart. Imagine if the english were fighting the scottish and russia was arming the scottish as an analogy.
I have such a premonition where this is going to end up...
Ok playing devils advocate how do you resolve this if say it becomes clear russia cant be pushed out of ukraine. Do you arm ukraine forever. The dam attack was horrific so many lives lost do you want this to continue. Think of thosecpoor children drowning when the dam burst.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
The Russians seem to be directly targetting civilian evacuation points. Shells landed within a few hundred metres of the main meeting spot. No possible military targets anywhere near.
...A Ukrainian officer said to me on the record that the Russians are refusing to allow civilians on the side they control through checkpoints. However, he shot down rumours that Russians were shooting people trying to flee, saying they had no evidence.
Very difficult to get a true picture of whats happening now in this war. There are of course lies on both sides as one would expect.
Only one of these two countries has invaded and occupied the other's territory.
Yes but we still need to know what really going on. So sad to see cousins ukrainians and russians fighting like this with all the deaths. Breaks my heart. Imagine if the english were fighting the scottish and russia was arming the scottish as an analogy.
This is why we hold the apocalyptic Covenanter tank in reserve - makes the Challenger II look nice.
1) If a passenger plane crashes on the Ukraine / Republic of China border, which side do bury the survivors? 2) Pineapple on pizza. Warcrime? 3) Why is Nick Palmer a God?
Johnson was yesterdays man from the moment he was ousted. The idea he was coming back at any point was fanciful. Too many people are done with the circus. On that basis I think Trump wont win either.
Ukraine: With the suggestion that the Ukrainians are mouting a frontal assault on Russian lines, though its scale is not yet clear, south and south east of Zaporizhzhia, none of this will come as a surprise to the Russians. This direction of attack has long been seen as the most likely. It could be weeks before we get a decisive result but its fair to say the Ukrainians face notable challenges.
Still a surprising lack of Russian tactical aviation in all this. One area of supposed significant numerical advantage and yet unfocussed and lacking in scale.
From what i hear sadly the ukrainian assaults are going very poorly with many men lost.
CNN: AFU suffered heavy losses in heavy equipment and soldiers, facing stronger than expected resistance from Russian troops One of the US officials called CNN losses, including American APCs MRAP, "significant". According to officials, the Armed Forces of Ukraine managed to push back part of the Russian forces in the Bakhmut region, but in the south of Ukraine, Russians armed with anti-tank missiles, grenades and mortars put up “fierce resistance”, breaking into defensive lines, which in some areas have several levels of depth and protected by minefields, which caused heavy damage to Ukrainian armored vehicles.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a sort of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Ukraine can barely launch a counter offensive and you are talking about the breakup and collapse of russia. You are a good comedian. Do you not have peace and love in your heart
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Johnson was yesterdays man from the moment he was ousted. The idea he was coming back at any point was fanciful. Too many people are done with the circus. On that basis I think Trump wont win either.
Ukraine: With the suggestion that the Ukrainians are mouting a frontal assault on Russian lines, though its scale is not yet clear, south and south east of Zaporizhzhia, none of this will come as a surprise to the Russians. This direction of attack has long been seen as the most likely. It could be weeks before we get a decisive result but its fair to say the Ukrainians face notable challenges.
Still a surprising lack of Russian tactical aviation in all this. One area of supposed significant numerical advantage and yet unfocussed and lacking in scale.
From what i hear sadly the ukrainian assaults are going very poorly with many men lost.
CNN: AFU suffered heavy losses in heavy equipment and soldiers, facing stronger than expected resistance from Russian troops One of the US officials called CNN losses, including American APCs MRAP, "significant". According to officials, the Armed Forces of Ukraine managed to push back part of the Russian forces in the Bakhmut region, but in the south of Ukraine, Russians armed with anti-tank missiles, grenades and mortars put up “fierce resistance”, breaking into defensive lines, which in some areas have several levels of depth and protected by minefields, which caused heavy damage to Ukrainian armored vehicles.
Welcome Excalibur! As you probably already know from reading the blog before deciding to post, I lady boss this site. Sometimes I allow them to post political betting, but it’s mostly a piggy luv site.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a sort of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Ukraine can barely launch a counter offensive and you are talking about the breakup and collapse of russia. You are a good comedian. Do you not have peace and love in your heart
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a sort of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Ukraine can barely launch a counter offensive and you are talking about the breakup and collapse of russia. You are a good comedian. Do you not have peace and love in your heart
Quite often I do, in fact, as a child of the 'sixties.
I don't think it's in the West's interest to hold out for the recovery of every inch of territitory in Ukraine, because that will lead to major instability in Russia.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Not if that monarch is circumscribed by law in the way they are in modern European monarchies. Indeed both a PM and an elected ceremonial president could try to claim some sort of democratic mandate for their actions. Something a monarch cannot do.
The monarch serves the purpose of representing the country above the level of politics. Ultimately they represent the People rather than the Government. Hence the reason that it is important that our armed forces swear allegience to the monarch, and through them to the people, rather than to any one partisan government.
Laws don't stop powerful strongmen taking over if the public believe in them. And the aura of monarchy is something that can rally people behind them. "I will do whats in the interest of the people and nation instead of these damn politicians" has been the narrative of coup leaders everywhere.
And yet it doesn't happen.
It hasn't happened in this country, it has happened in other countries.
Which modern European monarchy (the specific term I used in the comment which Will challenged) has this happened in? Actually, though I have not looked in detail so there may be exceptions, which modern constitutional monarchy has this happened in anywhere in the world post WW2? And how many presidencies has this happened in during the same period?
It hasn't happened in any modern democratic, European monarchies, but then the sample size and timespan there is small, few modern democratic, European republics have fallen under the sway of strong men post-WWII either.
Indeed I may be missing an obvious example but I can't think of any western European nation, democratic or republic, that has fallen under the sway of a strong man post-WWII. Franco was already in charge in Spain from the Spanish Civil War which preceded WWII.
Outside of Europe, without looking it up, Thailand is the first example that comes to mind of a monarchy that has fallen under the sway of the military and strong men and suspended democracy/rights when that has happened.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
Nice to be appreciated.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a sort of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Ukraine can barely launch a counter offensive and you are talking about the breakup and collapse of russia. You are a good comedian. Do you not have peace and love in your heart
Quite often I do, in fact, as a child of the 'sixties.
I don't think it's in the West's interest to hold out for the recovery of every inch of territitory in Ukraine, because that will lead to major instability in Russia.
Why do you want major instability in a nuclear power. Do you like mushroom clouds.
Johnson was yesterdays man from the moment he was ousted. The idea he was coming back at any point was fanciful. Too many people are done with the circus. On that basis I think Trump wont win either.
Ukraine: With the suggestion that the Ukrainians are mouting a frontal assault on Russian lines, though its scale is not yet clear, south and south east of Zaporizhzhia, none of this will come as a surprise to the Russians. This direction of attack has long been seen as the most likely. It could be weeks before we get a decisive result but its fair to say the Ukrainians face notable challenges.
Still a surprising lack of Russian tactical aviation in all this. One area of supposed significant numerical advantage and yet unfocussed and lacking in scale.
From what i hear sadly the ukrainian assaults are going very poorly with many men lost.
CNN: AFU suffered heavy losses in heavy equipment and soldiers, facing stronger than expected resistance from Russian troops One of the US officials called CNN losses, including American APCs MRAP, "significant". According to officials, the Armed Forces of Ukraine managed to push back part of the Russian forces in the Bakhmut region, but in the south of Ukraine, Russians armed with anti-tank missiles, grenades and mortars put up “fierce resistance”, breaking into defensive lines, which in some areas have several levels of depth and protected by minefields, which caused heavy damage to Ukrainian armored vehicles.
Welcome Excalibur! As you probably already know from reading the blog before deciding to post, I lady boss this site. Sometimes I allow them to post political betting, but it’s mostly a piggy luv site.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a sort of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Ukraine can barely launch a counter offensive and you are talking about the breakup and collapse of russia. You are a good comedian. Do you not have peace and love in your heart
Quite often I do, in fact, as a child of the 'sixties.
I don't think it's in the West's interest to hold out for the recovery of every inch of territitory in Ukraine, because that will lead to major instability in Russia.
Why do you want major instability in a nuclear power. Do you like mushroom clouds.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
Nice to be appreciated.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
Oh Great One is just for friends.
How will you feel if the ukrainian counter offensive ends in humiliation for ukraine. It wont feel good will it.
Johnson was yesterdays man from the moment he was ousted. The idea he was coming back at any point was fanciful. Too many people are done with the circus. On that basis I think Trump wont win either.
Ukraine: With the suggestion that the Ukrainians are mouting a frontal assault on Russian lines, though its scale is not yet clear, south and south east of Zaporizhzhia, none of this will come as a surprise to the Russians. This direction of attack has long been seen as the most likely. It could be weeks before we get a decisive result but its fair to say the Ukrainians face notable challenges.
Still a surprising lack of Russian tactical aviation in all this. One area of supposed significant numerical advantage and yet unfocussed and lacking in scale.
From what i hear sadly the ukrainian assaults are going very poorly with many men lost.
CNN: AFU suffered heavy losses in heavy equipment and soldiers, facing stronger than expected resistance from Russian troops One of the US officials called CNN losses, including American APCs MRAP, "significant". According to officials, the Armed Forces of Ukraine managed to push back part of the Russian forces in the Bakhmut region, but in the south of Ukraine, Russians armed with anti-tank missiles, grenades and mortars put up “fierce resistance”, breaking into defensive lines, which in some areas have several levels of depth and protected by minefields, which caused heavy damage to Ukrainian armored vehicles.
Welcome Excalibur! As you probably already know from reading the blog before deciding to post, I lady boss this site. Sometimes I allow them to post political betting, but it’s mostly a piggy luv site.
Do you like piggies? I bloody love them! 🥰
Where’s the apple sauce?
{fires up the BBQ}
There’s always one isn’t there, every time I post a piggy. 🙄
Robert Kennedy Jr and Jordan Peterson on the conflict in Ukraine: The Russians have long offered to end the conflict, they wanted guarantees of Ukraine's neutrality and that it would not join NATO - we refused. The Russians have always honoured their own commitments, such as withdrawing troops from East Germany after the collapse of the USSR. We have often cheated them. We spent vast sums of money to overthrow the democratically elected President Yanukovych in 2014".
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
Nice to be appreciated.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
Oh Great One is just for friends.
How will you feel if the ukrainian counter offensive ends in humiliation for ukraine. It wont feel good will it.
What Russia needs, to beat Ukraine, is a leader whose Mighty Weapons actually… work.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
Uk support on its own wouldnt help ukraine much though.
Robert Kennedy Jr and Jordan Peterson on the conflict in Ukraine: The Russians have long offered to end the conflict, they wanted guarantees of Ukraine's neutrality and that it would not join NATO - we refused. The Russians have always honoured their own commitments, such as withdrawing troops from East Germany after the collapse of the USSR. We have often cheated them. We spent vast sums of money to overthrow the democratically elected President Yanukovych in 2014".
Robert Kennedy Jr and Jordan Peterson on the conflict in Ukraine: The Russians have long offered to end the conflict, they wanted guarantees of Ukraine's neutrality and that it would not join NATO - we refused. The Russians have always honoured their own commitments, such as withdrawing troops from East Germany after the collapse of the USSR. We have often cheated them. We spent vast sums of money to overthrow the democratically elected President Yanukovych in 2014".
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
Nice to be appreciated.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
Oh Great One is just for friends.
How will you feel if the ukrainian counter offensive ends in humiliation for ukraine. It wont feel good will it.
What Russia needs, to beat Ukraine, is a leader whose Mighty Weapons actually… work.
I love your snark when your losing the argument. Humiliation for the west coming in 3..2..1
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
Uk support on its own wouldnt help ukraine much though.
Well, British weapons have a Super Secret advantage over Russian weapons.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
Uk support on its own wouldnt help ukraine much though.
Actually it would, you guys might have lost the war even if it were just the UK supporting Ukraine.
Thankfully though the UK isn't on its own supporting Ukraine. You're on your own though.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
Nice to be appreciated.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
Oh Great One is just for friends.
How will you feel if the ukrainian counter offensive ends in humiliation for ukraine. It wont feel good will it.
What Russia needs, to beat Ukraine, is a leader whose Mighty Weapons actually… work.
I love your snark when your losing the argument. Humiliation for the west coming in 3..2..1
Don’t feel bad. Underperformance in certain… functions is a common problem among despots.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
Uk support on its own wouldnt help ukraine much though.
Actually it would, you guys might have lost the war even if it were just the UK supporting Ukraine.
Thankfully though the UK isn't on its own supporting Ukraine. You're on your own though.
Compare the moscow subway with the dirty crime ridden ny subway.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a sort of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Ukraine can barely launch a counter offensive and you are talking about the breakup and collapse of russia. You are a good comedian. Do you not have peace and love in your heart
Quite often I do, in fact, as a child of the 'sixties.
I don't think it's in the West's interest to hold out for the recovery of every inch of territitory in Ukraine, because that will lead to major instability in Russia.
You say that as if major instability in Russia is a problem.
Major stability in Russia, as in having a single authoritarian leader for the past quarter of a century, has not been a positive.
The collapse and break-up of the Muscovite Empire that is Russia could be a very good thing for the world, just as the collapse and break-up of the USSR was.
Every single inch of territory in Ukraine needs to be liberated. If that leads to instability in Russia, that's just a bonus.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
A lot of boosterism here. Some of this maximalism has been short-term expediency for Johnson and Truss, and overall we're closely in the American orbit on Ukraine policy, and regularly checking to agree and re-coordinate positions.
As I mentioned, this hasn't been a bad thing overall so far, but that could be subject to change at any time.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
Nice to be appreciated.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
Oh Great One is just for friends.
How will you feel if the ukrainian counter offensive ends in humiliation for ukraine. It wont feel good will it.
What Russia needs, to beat Ukraine, is a leader whose Mighty Weapons actually… work.
I love your snark when your losing the argument. Humiliation for the west coming in 3..2..1
Don’t feel bad. Underperformance in certain… functions is a common problem among despots.
Lol yes lets have a guy who falls over all the time and a silly grinning midget man .
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
Uk support on its own wouldnt help ukraine much though.
Actually it would, you guys might have lost the war even if it were just the UK supporting Ukraine.
Thankfully though the UK isn't on its own supporting Ukraine. You're on your own though.
Compare the moscow subway with the dirty crime ridden ny subway.
I'll take your word for it on what your local Moscow subway is like, but I've been to New York many times and used their subway while there. I wouldn't even consider trading it for life under your dear leader, thank you very much.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
Nice to be appreciated.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
Oh Great One is just for friends.
How will you feel if the ukrainian counter offensive ends in humiliation for ukraine. It wont feel good will it.
What Russia needs, to beat Ukraine, is a leader whose Mighty Weapons actually… work.
I love your snark when your losing the argument. Humiliation for the west coming in 3..2..1
Don’t feel bad. Underperformance in certain… functions is a common problem among despots.
Lol yes lets have a guy who falls over all the time and a silly grinning midget man .
Far less silly than tin pot Gollum leading Russia. Your pathetic little country has alreadt been humiliated with two massive retreats. The third is coming.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
A lot of boosterism here. Some of this maximalism was just short-term expediency for Johnson and Truss, and overall we're closely in the American orbit on Ukraine policy.
This hasn't been a bad thing so far, but that could change at any time.
Perhaps. But the support in Britain is not, among major parties, becoming more divided along partisan lines. That is starting to happen in the USA, though it's not totally transformed yet. So there's reason to believe even if American policy positions changed ours would not, as despite being in orbit now that would not be the case at such a point.
Obviously the practical support would change, since we and others could not do as much as we can without US backing, but the policy direction as much as possible would be its own.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
Nice to be appreciated.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
Oh Great One is just for friends.
How will you feel if the ukrainian counter offensive ends in humiliation for ukraine. It wont feel good will it.
What Russia needs, to beat Ukraine, is a leader whose Mighty Weapons actually… work.
I love your snark when your losing the argument. Humiliation for the west coming in 3..2..1
Don’t feel bad. Underperformance in certain… functions is a common problem among despots.
Lol yes lets have a guy who falls over all the time and a silly grinning midget man .
Far less silly than tin pot Gollum leading Russia. Your pathetic little country has alreadt been humiliated with two massive retreats. The third is coming.
The little children in russia all hate the west now. What legacy is that.
Sometimes I think these efforts include parts that are almost self aware, or trying to covertly put out a message not authorised, but I think they really cannot see the implication of their own comments versus the point they think is being made.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
A lot of boosterism here. Some of this maximalism was just short-term expediency for Johnson and Truss, and overall we're closely in the American orbit on Ukraine policy.
This hasn't been a bad thing so far, but that could change at any time.
What American orbit? As we've already established, Trump had a totally different policy on Ukraine to either May or Johnson in 2019.
The maximalism has been a long-term policy of the UK since at the very least Salisbury, if not before then.
Its not just Boris Johnson who deserves credit for the support offered to Ukraine to help them in this conflict, strong kudos should go to Theresa May and David Cameron too.
That is why Kyiv survived the initial onslaught while the German ambassador was saying there was no point sanctioning Russia 'because Kiev would fall in hours'. Because our support to them did not begin this past year or when it was a matter of short-term expediency but has been a consistent and long-term policy now for many years.
You seem to view the choice as a binary of either Europe or America and no alternatives. There is an alternative, and we've followed it: independence, working with our allies when it suited our agenda.
We've worked with America when it suited. We've worked with Germany when it suited.
And when both America and Germany were led by people blinded by Putin, for very different reasons, we were not thankfully for us and for Ukraine.
This is not sustainable. After adding up all the casualties and losses from just one day, the AFU have lost ~2000 personnel, dozens of armored vehicles (tanks, IFV, etc.) and at least on aircraft. So far no gains to speak, though a village was initially captured but retaken by the RF. The RF seem to be conducting the usual tactics. Wait for a probing attack, pull back a few km to draw it in, then hit from three sides and obliterate.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
Nice to be appreciated.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
Oh Great One is just for friends.
How will you feel if the ukrainian counter offensive ends in humiliation for ukraine. It wont feel good will it.
What Russia needs, to beat Ukraine, is a leader whose Mighty Weapons actually… work.
I love your snark when your losing the argument. Humiliation for the west coming in 3..2..1
Don’t feel bad. Underperformance in certain… functions is a common problem among despots.
Lol yes lets have a guy who falls over all the time and a silly grinning midget man .
You mean the leaders of countries with growing economies and lots of not dead people?
All because Putin was worried the big kids are laughing at him.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
A lot of boosterism here. Some of this maximalism was just short-term expediency for Johnson and Truss, and overall we're closely in the American orbit on Ukraine policy.
This hasn't been a bad thing so far, but that could change at any time.
Perhaps. But the support in Britain is not, among major parties, becoming more divided along partisan lines. That is starting to happen in the USA, though it's not totally transformed yet. So there's reason to believe even if American policy positions changed ours would not, as despite being in orbit now that would not be the case at such a point.
Obviously the practical support would change, since we and others could not do as much as we can without US backing, but the policy direction as much as possible would be its own.
Its not just something that could happen in the future, its something that did happen in the recent past.
@WhisperingOracle is blinded by his faith in the notion that the west is divided into "American orbit" or "European orbit" but the world is more complex than that. In 2019 both Merkel and Trump were far too soft on Putin.
Thankfully Britain was not.
That is independence, true independence, and is to be welcomed.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
A lot of boosterism here. Some of this maximalism was just short-term expediency for Johnson and Truss, and overall we're closely in the American orbit on Ukraine policy.
This hasn't been a bad thing so far, but that could change at any time.
Perhaps. But the support in Britain is not, among major parties, becoming more divided along partisan lines. That is starting to happen in the USA, though it's not totally transformed yet. So there's reason to believe even if American policy positions changed ours would not, as despite being in orbit now that would not be the case at such a point.
Obviously the practical support would change, since we and others could not do as much as we can without US backing, but the policy direction as much as possible would be its own.
On topic. You looks like you and your friend Meeks have Called this very wrong TSE!
The Telegraph have Boris surviving the 10 day ban - the committee have thrown out the diary evidence - and rather than “spending the next few weeks bitterly denouncing the committee” Boris Johnson’s “outriders” seem suddenly buoyed and happy. The Telegraph has a Boris Supporter in Rishi’s cabinet boasting the Free Vote on 29th June not only draws a line under the entire Partygate affair once and for all, but in a cathartic moment, reunites the Tory Party.
I know some will say it’s just one paper, and it’s the Telegraph, but that’s precisely it - if any paper is going to be first to tell us the mood of Boris and his gang right now with the report in his hands, it’s going to be the Telegraph isn’t it?
My call is, as it’s now not likely to be a 10 day or more suspension voted on, the real vitriol for letting the Tories draw a final line under all this will fall upon the non Tory members of the special committee. An inglorious end for Harriet Harman is what the story will become.
When you consider it, it’s all so obvious, with Tory’s on the committee already reporting back what’s been decided it’s hardly a huge secret - so what to make of the last minute leaks against Boris, like the diary? Desperation from those who have heard Boris is surviving hence they tried to get some last minute weight of evidence out there - which might have put the Boris camp on edge until they learned today the committee aren’t even going to consider this new stuff. Hence the sudden buoyant mood in the Boris camp.
Wether we think the free vote on less than 10 days/slap of wrist is justice done or not, every one of us has to realise all the politics and what is at stake to have engineered this outcome. A ten day Ban would put immense pressure not just on Sunak but every single member of government. The free vote is a complete red herring, the fact it’s not a 10day ban is the main thing as it means voting to slap his wrist, or vote not to slap his wrist, or not turning up and going baseball instead is absolutely meaningless, it doesn’t carry any jeopardy now to the current powers that be. That’s the bottom line.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
Nice to be appreciated.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
Oh Great One is just for friends.
How will you feel if the ukrainian counter offensive ends in humiliation for ukraine. It wont feel good will it.
What Russia needs, to beat Ukraine, is a leader whose Mighty Weapons actually… work.
I love your snark when your losing the argument. Humiliation for the west coming in 3..2..1
Don’t feel bad. Underperformance in certain… functions is a common problem among despots.
Lol yes lets have a guy who falls over all the time and a silly grinning midget man .
You mean the leaders of countries with growing economies and lots of not dead people?
All because Putin was worried the big kids are laughing at him.
Nearly midnite uk time and you are still here with your snark.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
Nice to be appreciated.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
Oh Great One is just for friends.
How will you feel if the ukrainian counter offensive ends in humiliation for ukraine. It wont feel good will it.
What Russia needs, to beat Ukraine, is a leader whose Mighty Weapons actually… work.
I love your snark when your losing the argument. Humiliation for the west coming in 3..2..1
Don’t feel bad. Underperformance in certain… functions is a common problem among despots.
Lol yes lets have a guy who falls over all the time and a silly grinning midget man .
You mean the leaders of countries with growing economies and lots of not dead people?
All because Putin was worried the big kids are laughing at him.
Nearly midnite uk time and you are still here with your snark.
Nearly 2am Moscow time and you are still here awaiting your 🔨
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
A lot of boosterism here. Some of this maximalism was just short-term expediency for Johnson and Truss, and overall we're closely in the American orbit on Ukraine policy.
This hasn't been a bad thing so far, but that could change at any time.
What American orbit? As we've already established, Trump had a totally different policy on Ukraine to either May or Johnson in 2019.
The maximalism has been a long-term policy of the UK since at the very least Salisbury, if not before then.
Its not just Boris Johnson who deserves credit for the support offered to Ukraine to help them in this conflict, strong kudos should go to Theresa May and David Cameron too.
That is why Kyiv survived the initial onslaught while the German ambassador was saying there was no point sanctioning Russia 'because Kiev would fall in hours'. Because our support to them did not begin this past year or when it was a matter of short-term expediency but has been a consistent and long-term policy now for many years.
You seem to view the choice as a binary of either Europe or America and no alternatives. There is an alternative, and we've followed it: independence, working with our allies when it suited our agenda.
We've worked with America when it suited. We've worked with Germany when it suited.
And when both America and Germany were led by people blinded by Putin, for very different reasons, we were not thankfully for us and for Ukraine.
Quite the opposite, I view it in terms of taking every opportunity to maximise independent influence. This definitely doesn't mean an either/or approach to Europe or America, but it does mean working more collegiately and collectively with neighbouring nations, rather than in isolation, and with individual countries. The EPC is one of the best forums for Britain to do this, unless one takes just that kind of approach you're describing of an either/or or zero-sum approach to European or American co-operation.
I wouldn't agree that Britain led on Ukraine during the Obama period, when all this latest conflict began. It carefully co-ordinated and followed the Obama White House on this. Trump was then in one way an outlier and out of step with Britain, but from another point view with his administration fully behind Putin's goal of separating Britain from Europe, via supporting key figures in the Conservatie Party who backed Brexit.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
Nice to be appreciated.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
Oh Great One is just for friends.
How will you feel if the ukrainian counter offensive ends in humiliation for ukraine. It wont feel good will it.
What Russia needs, to beat Ukraine, is a leader whose Mighty Weapons actually… work.
I love your snark when your losing the argument. Humiliation for the west coming in 3..2..1
Don’t feel bad. Underperformance in certain… functions is a common problem among despots.
Lol yes lets have a guy who falls over all the time and a silly grinning midget man .
You mean the leaders of countries with growing economies and lots of not dead people?
All because Putin was worried the big kids are laughing at him.
Nearly midnite uk time and you are still here with your snark.
Nearly 2am Moscow time and you are still here awaiting your 🔨
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
A lot of boosterism here. Some of this maximalism was just short-term expediency for Johnson and Truss, and overall we're closely in the American orbit on Ukraine policy.
This hasn't been a bad thing so far, but that could change at any time.
What American orbit? As we've already established, Trump had a totally different policy on Ukraine to either May or Johnson in 2019.
The maximalism has been a long-term policy of the UK since at the very least Salisbury, if not before then.
Its not just Boris Johnson who deserves credit for the support offered to Ukraine to help them in this conflict, strong kudos should go to Theresa May and David Cameron too.
That is why Kyiv survived the initial onslaught while the German ambassador was saying there was no point sanctioning Russia 'because Kiev would fall in hours'. Because our support to them did not begin this past year or when it was a matter of short-term expediency but has been a consistent and long-term policy now for many years.
You seem to view the choice as a binary of either Europe or America and no alternatives. There is an alternative, and we've followed it: independence, working with our allies when it suited our agenda.
We've worked with America when it suited. We've worked with Germany when it suited.
And when both America and Germany were led by people blinded by Putin, for very different reasons, we were not thankfully for us and for Ukraine.
Quite the opposite, I view it in terms of taking every opportunity to maximise indeoendent influence.
This definitely doesn't mean an either/or approach to Europe or America, but it does mean working more collegiately and collectively with neighbouring nations, rather than in isolation. The EPC is one of the best forums for this, unless one takes just such as either/or approach to European co-operation.
I also wouldn't agree that Britain led on Ukraine during the Obama period, when all this laest conflict began. It carefully co-ordinated and followed the Obama White House, on this, with Trump in one way out of step with Britain, but from another point view with his administration fully behind Putin's goal of separating Britain from Europe with Brexit.
The EPC is another talking shop, its meaningless nonsense.
True co-operation happens not through talking shops but by like-minded sovereign nations making meaningful decisions to act. Even if other nations choose not to.
Collegiality, yes, and we have that in abundance. Collectivism, no. Collectivism is working to the lowest common denominator which is why it doesn't work.
We can work with other nations in one area where it suits us, but not on another when it doesn't, because that is how independent nations work all over the globe.
Oh and Obama was President when we chose to go for Brexit.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
A lot of boosterism here. Some of this maximalism was just short-term expediency for Johnson and Truss, and overall we're closely in the American orbit on Ukraine policy.
This hasn't been a bad thing so far, but that could change at any time.
What American orbit? As we've already established, Trump had a totally different policy on Ukraine to either May or Johnson in 2019.
The maximalism has been a long-term policy of the UK since at the very least Salisbury, if not before then.
Its not just Boris Johnson who deserves credit for the support offered to Ukraine to help them in this conflict, strong kudos should go to Theresa May and David Cameron too.
That is why Kyiv survived the initial onslaught while the German ambassador was saying there was no point sanctioning Russia 'because Kiev would fall in hours'. Because our support to them did not begin this past year or when it was a matter of short-term expediency but has been a consistent and long-term policy now for many years.
You seem to view the choice as a binary of either Europe or America and no alternatives. There is an alternative, and we've followed it: independence, working with our allies when it suited our agenda.
We've worked with America when it suited. We've worked with Germany when it suited.
And when both America and Germany were led by people blinded by Putin, for very different reasons, we were not thankfully for us and for Ukraine.
Quite the opposite, I view it in terms of taking every opportunity to maximise indeoendent influence.
This definitely doesn't mean an either/or approach to Europe or America, but it does mean working more collegiately and collectively with neighbouring nations, rather than in isolation. The EPC is one of the best forums for this, unless one takes just such as either/or approach to European co-operation.
I also wouldn't agree that Britain led on Ukraine during the Obama period, when all this laest conflict began. It carefully co-ordinated and followed the Obama White House, on this, with Trump in one way out of step with Britain, but from another point view with his administration fully behind Putin's goal of separating Britain from Europe with Brexit.
The EPC is another talking shop, its meaningless nonsense.
True co-operation happens not through talking shops but by like-minded sovereign nations making meaningful decisions to act. Even if other nations choose not to.
Collegiality, yes, and we have that in abundance. Collectivism, no. Collectivism is working to the lowest common denominator which is why it doesn't work.
We can work with other nations in one area where it suits us, but not on another when it doesn't, because that is how independent nations work all over the globe.
Oh and Obama was President when we chose to go for Brexit.
..and Trump was partly brought to partly by someone who was simultaneously one of ts biggest backers, the fragrant Steve Bannon, lest we've forget him.
It's too early to say whether the EPC will be just a talking shop, I think. Some British politicans thought this originally of the earliest European bodies, and so, partly, but not wholly, for that reason, chose to take a back seat.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
A lot of boosterism here. Some of this maximalism was just short-term expediency for Johnson and Truss, and overall we're closely in the American orbit on Ukraine policy.
This hasn't been a bad thing so far, but that could change at any time.
What American orbit? As we've already established, Trump had a totally different policy on Ukraine to either May or Johnson in 2019.
The maximalism has been a long-term policy of the UK since at the very least Salisbury, if not before then.
Its not just Boris Johnson who deserves credit for the support offered to Ukraine to help them in this conflict, strong kudos should go to Theresa May and David Cameron too.
That is why Kyiv survived the initial onslaught while the German ambassador was saying there was no point sanctioning Russia 'because Kiev would fall in hours'. Because our support to them did not begin this past year or when it was a matter of short-term expediency but has been a consistent and long-term policy now for many years.
You seem to view the choice as a binary of either Europe or America and no alternatives. There is an alternative, and we've followed it: independence, working with our allies when it suited our agenda.
We've worked with America when it suited. We've worked with Germany when it suited.
And when both America and Germany were led by people blinded by Putin, for very different reasons, we were not thankfully for us and for Ukraine.
Quite the opposite, I view it in terms of taking every opportunity to maximise indeoendent influence.
This definitely doesn't mean an either/or approach to Europe or America, but it does mean working more collegiately and collectively with neighbouring nations, rather than in isolation. The EPC is one of the best forums for this, unless one takes just such as either/or approach to European co-operation.
I also wouldn't agree that Britain led on Ukraine during the Obama period, when all this laest conflict began. It carefully co-ordinated and followed the Obama White House, on this, with Trump in one way out of step with Britain, but from another point view with his administration fully behind Putin's goal of separating Britain from Europe with Brexit.
The EPC is another talking shop, its meaningless nonsense.
True co-operation happens not through talking shops but by like-minded sovereign nations making meaningful decisions to act. Even if other nations choose not to.
Collegiality, yes, and we have that in abundance. Collectivism, no. Collectivism is working to the lowest common denominator which is why it doesn't work.
We can work with other nations in one area where it suits us, but not on another when it doesn't, because that is how independent nations work all over the globe.
Oh and Obama was President when we chose to go for Brexit.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
A lot of boosterism here. Some of this maximalism was just short-term expediency for Johnson and Truss, and overall we're closely in the American orbit on Ukraine policy.
This hasn't been a bad thing so far, but that could change at any time.
What American orbit? As we've already established, Trump had a totally different policy on Ukraine to either May or Johnson in 2019.
The maximalism has been a long-term policy of the UK since at the very least Salisbury, if not before then.
Its not just Boris Johnson who deserves credit for the support offered to Ukraine to help them in this conflict, strong kudos should go to Theresa May and David Cameron too.
That is why Kyiv survived the initial onslaught while the German ambassador was saying there was no point sanctioning Russia 'because Kiev would fall in hours'. Because our support to them did not begin this past year or when it was a matter of short-term expediency but has been a consistent and long-term policy now for many years.
You seem to view the choice as a binary of either Europe or America and no alternatives. There is an alternative, and we've followed it: independence, working with our allies when it suited our agenda.
We've worked with America when it suited. We've worked with Germany when it suited.
And when both America and Germany were led by people blinded by Putin, for very different reasons, we were not thankfully for us and for Ukraine.
Quite the opposite, I view it in terms of taking every opportunity to maximise indeoendent influence.
This definitely doesn't mean an either/or approach to Europe or America, but it does mean working more collegiately and collectively with neighbouring nations, rather than in isolation. The EPC is one of the best forums for this, unless one takes just such as either/or approach to European co-operation.
I also wouldn't agree that Britain led on Ukraine during the Obama period, when all this laest conflict began. It carefully co-ordinated and followed the Obama White House, on this, with Trump in one way out of step with Britain, but from another point view with his administration fully behind Putin's goal of separating Britain from Europe with Brexit.
The EPC is another talking shop, its meaningless nonsense.
True co-operation happens not through talking shops but by like-minded sovereign nations making meaningful decisions to act. Even if other nations choose not to.
Collegiality, yes, and we have that in abundance. Collectivism, no. Collectivism is working to the lowest common denominator which is why it doesn't work.
We can work with other nations in one area where it suits us, but not on another when it doesn't, because that is how independent nations work all over the globe.
Oh and Obama was President when we chose to go for Brexit.
..and Trump was brought to power partly by one its biggest backers, the fragrant Steve Bannon.
It's too early to say whether the EPC will be just a talking shop, I think. Some British politicans thought this originally of the earliest European bodies, and so, partly, but not wholly, for that reason, chose to take a back seat.
Its too early to say the EPC is anything other than a talking shop. It might one day have a great success to its name, but it hasn't yet, but for some reason you are already decreeing that it is "one of the best forums" for working with other nations?
No, one of the best forums for working with other nations is the Prime Minister of this country and the Prime Minister of another country like Poland or Estonia etc discussing directly how they are going to get munitions into Ukraine and train the Ukrainian military.
Like-minded nations working together voluntarily has done more for European security than the United Nations, the European Union, the EPC or any other talking shop ever has done.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
Nice to be appreciated.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
Oh Great One is just for friends.
How will you feel if the ukrainian counter offensive ends in humiliation for ukraine. It wont feel good will it.
What Russia needs, to beat Ukraine, is a leader whose Mighty Weapons actually… work.
I love your snark when your losing the argument. Humiliation for the west coming in 3..2..1
Don’t feel bad. Underperformance in certain… functions is a common problem among despots.
Lol yes lets have a guy who falls over all the time and a silly grinning midget man .
You mean the leaders of countries with growing economies and lots of not dead people?
All because Putin was worried the big kids are laughing at him.
Nearly midnite uk time and you are still here with your snark.
Serious question, as you seem to know so much from a Russian point of view. Why did Lenin sign a peace deal with Germany whilst they were still encamped in Ukraine?
Why didn’t he continue to fight until Ukraine was liberated?
Meeks mentions in passing the current trend to renationalise rail. One interesting data point is the utter shambles that is Transpenine Express which was (very slowly) improving slightly. Since being nationalised a month or so ago, quite remarkably its actually gone backwards and is now canceling as many trains at the worst of the crisis last winter.
The little children in russia all hate the west now. What legacy is that.
The measure of a man, they say, is in his enemies.
Bit of a shame that all we have is Russia.
But it will have to do, until a major country comes along.
Russia is reource rich with very low debt to gdp unlike the usa drowning in debt.
How does it feel to look up at economic giants like… Mexico?
Mexico doesnt have nuclear weapons remember that.
Mexico’s Guacamole Grenades alone could disarm Russia on present form.
A delicious way to go though. Do you know the recipe dates back to the Aztecs.
By august the west will be facing total humiliation. How would that make you feel at the hands of a tinpot economy. Wouldnt feel good would it.
I don’t feel good already at the thought of all the Ukrainians now risking their lives because they have been left with no choice, their land, their freedom is at stake. They are poor. They look west to see how being in EU helps the grass to grow greener.
Even if the bear maybe has some good points to growl “but the grass doesn’t actually grow greener over there you idiots, it comes with strings attached” every brexiteer in UK can hardly argue when the green grass comes at a price they hated - but it’s not the bears decision at the end of the day, that’s the principle, Ukraine is not Russia. In 1939 70+% population of Lyiv was polish. The bear does not speak for Ukrainians, the bear does not decide for Ukrainians, Ukrainians are not Russian. Never have been, never will be.
The Chinese regime seems to be doing a lot of conmunication with Russian Prime Minister Mishustin. Some real red carpet stuff to boot, the kind of things reserved for someone like a President.
Maybe they are just getting close to their preferred successor in Russia.
The Chinese regime seems to be doing a lot of conmunication with Russian Prime Minister Mishustin. Some real red carpet stuff to boot, the kind of things reserved for someone like a President.
Maybe they are just getting close to their preferred successor in Russia.
Mixed in with the charade of standing by a friend, like we would want to appear on a besties side even when thinking them wrong and making idiotic mistakes?
The Chinese regime seems to be doing a lot of conmunication with Russian Prime Minister Mishustin. Some real red carpet stuff to boot, the kind of things reserved for someone like a President.
Maybe they are just getting close to their preferred successor in Russia.
Good call.
Mixed in with the charade of standing by a friend, like we would want to appear on a besties side even when thinking them wrong and making idiotic mistakes?
The level of recepion afforded to Mishustin is unusual. China couldnt give a fiddlers about Putin.
The Chinese regime seems to be doing a lot of conmunication with Russian Prime Minister Mishustin. Some real red carpet stuff to boot, the kind of things reserved for someone like a President.
Maybe they are just getting close to their preferred successor in Russia.
Good call.
Mixed in with the charade of standing by a friend, like we would want to appear on a besties side even when thinking them wrong and making idiotic mistakes?
The level of recepion afforded to Mishustin is unusual. China couldnt give a fiddlers about Putin.
Putin wouldn’t have massively over promoted him if he anticipated he could become a political threat though. He’s still most likely being a lap dog in there, protecting the establishments ill gotten gains.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
"Rishi Sunak has annoyed experts, politicians, and journalists across Europe after claiming that the UK was “taking the lead” on illegal migration at a summit in Moldova – which had nothing to do with migration at all."
A way to build local influence, in a system of looser alliances.
If you think the likes of Dave Keating are the gatekeepers to European influence, then we have a bigger problem...
The EPC is an opportunity for Britain to rebuild intra-European relationships, prestige and influence, while still being outside the structures of the EU ; surely something many voters might agree would help.
It's not taken that opportunity so far ; quite the reverse.
What will rebuild British prestige in Europe, to the extent that it's been lost, is economic success "despite Brexit", not ostentatious collegiality that nobody will respect.
Collegiality built the single market.
Collegiality built the expansion into Eastern Europe.
A strange response that is not only irrelevant in a post-Brexit context, but also memory-holes just how uncollegiate our relations with the rest of the EC/EU were during much of that period.
But Britain had an influence within the EU, to exercise an outsize influence over the whole Continent. You could call that collegiality or co-operation, but it's a simple fact that Britain doesn't have that any more.
Sunak could try and rebuild that in the EPC, and even stay out of the single market, but instead he seems more interested even in nonsense in talking about "stop the boats" to the Moldovans even before talking about Ukraine, which illustrates how extreme this narcissistic-isolationist syndrome has become. Roll on Starmer, a return to the single market, and a stronger and less ridiculous role in the EPC.
Call me a cynic, but I don't think that what Rishi Sunak's press secretary briefs the Guardian about his priority for the summit in Moldova necessarily corresponds with his actual priorities.
Every country has domestic politics, and every leader around the table understands that. It might give the likes of Dave Keating an excuse to indulge their usual nonsense about Britain but you shouldn't be so quick to accept their framing.
But messaging matters. Brexit had a large element of domestic Tory messaging over international relationships and impressions too.
We can say for sure that hijacking the conference of new international political organisation, which is in fact partly designed to help Britain return to the European arena, with nonsense designed for the tabloiids, hasn't helped Britain's international reputation, in the same way.
It was only "hijacked" if you have a strangely inflated sense of the importance of the British press. Britain's international reputation isn't determined by a tiny bubble of Twitter-obsessed EU correspondents.
Look here - the negative reaction seems be mainly from European officials, thinktankers and politicians.
That article doesn't quote a single negative reaction from a politician, just an unnamed EU official and Fabian Zuleeg, who has been notoriously zealous about Brexit throughout.
Well, I can see I'm not going to make any progress with your impressions.
Britain has to choose to restore whether its influence in Europe, or not. I think Starmer will help move us back in the right direction, over the long-term.
Is it not obvious that our future influence comes from being seen to succeed, not from immediately agreeing with the position taken by everyone else. Tony Blair has been fairly articulate in expressing this view of Brexit so you don't have to take it from me.
That comes back to the post earlier - we are just not in a position anymore to succeed purely by domination rather than co-operation.
This is already becoming clear, but will be even clearer in the long-term.
It's a totally false dichotomy. Do you seriously think that Brexit was a bid for domination? Over what?
You suggested that the key for Britain was to perform better than the EU, so that the EU followed Britain's lead.
I'm afraid this isn't realistic, or going to happen.
Its perfectly realistic and its already happened, with regards to supporting Ukraine in our continents most-serious armed conflict since World War II.
We already performed better than the EU by supporting Kyiv since before the war began, including flying munitions around German airspace, and the outcome is that the EU has subsequently followed our lead with Germany abandoning its support for Ostpolitik and Nordstream.
The notion the UK can't independently perform well outside of the EU is nothing but self-deprecating nonsense. Better or worse is a matter of choices made, not being in or out of the structure of the EU. And if we're making bad choices, its easier to course correct by removing our politicians at a General Election and electing a new bunch instead than it is to oust politicians and their collective viewpoint over the entire continent of Europe simultaneously.
See the comments earlier in the day.
Compared to France's policies in the Mediterranean. and many other areas, this is not independent policy.
Your desire for divergence from the US for its own sake reminds me of @Luckyguy1983 but I'm not sure you would support the concrete implications of a foreign policy design less around liberal internationalism and more around unsentimental British national intererts.
I don't desire divergence from the USA from its own sake, nor have any of my posts argued that. We should stay in step with the US on Ukraine, and contrarily to many people, I think we were right to be in step with the US over Libya.
The problem is more that, post-Thatcher and Reagan, particularly, we have often had total convergence for its own sake. Or, more accutely, because there is often a fearful idea that no other more nuanced course is possible, when looking across to our neighbours, who the US still regards as key allies, we see that it is.
We should not and did not stay in step with the USA when the President of the United States of America was trying to make military aid to Ukraine be conditional upon Ukraine faking materials to assist his re-election attempt.
We operated independently as we should and independently chose to be firm allies of Ukraine, even when America wavered or was led by a disreputable President.
We have not had total convergence for its own sake, that is completely false, we have diverged from them on many issues. Stop buying Putin's myths that we are tied to the hip of America, we are not remotely.
If you need to imagine this is true, who am I to disrupt the illusion. The fact that it is a typical Putinist trope doesn't make it a taboo, or untrue.
In fact an explicit goal of Dugin's Russian military and intelligence manual was to make Britain even more joined at the hip with the US and distanced from Europe to begin with, which was partly achieved by supporting Brexit, so he partly knows more of what he speaks from the inside, and probably at some remove from figures like Lebedev, who were present the very night Bozo and Gove decided to support it.
The fact its untrue makes it untrue.
The fact its a Putinist trope that is untrue is just the cherry on top.
Why didn't we waver in support to Ukraine when America did if we are so tied at the hip?
Why did we offer tanks to Ukraine before America did if we are so tied at the hip?
That we are allies with America does not make us subservient to them.
Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin ( and Brexit ).
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
Yes, Trump opposed supporting Ukraine because he was more favourable to Putin, just like Germany, and he was President of the United States of America for four years.
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
A lot of boosterism here. Some of this maximalism was just short-term expediency for Johnson and Truss, and overall we're closely in the American orbit on Ukraine policy.
This hasn't been a bad thing so far, but that could change at any time.
Perhaps. But the support in Britain is not, among major parties, becoming more divided along partisan lines. That is starting to happen in the USA, though it's not totally transformed yet. So there's reason to believe even if American policy positions changed ours would not, as despite being in orbit now that would not be the case at such a point.
Obviously the practical support would change, since we and others could not do as much as we can without US backing, but the policy direction as much as possible would be its own.
Many us maga types are sensible and want peace.
Peace is very easy to achieve. All that needs to happen is for the invading army to leave Ukraine.
With regard to the dam always ask cui bono. Whatcwould be the incentive for russia to destroy the dam and ruin the positions of many of its troops. Why would they do that.
Because of the overriding principle of Russian military strategy -
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Sorry i defer to your wisdom on russian military strategy oh great one.
Nice to be appreciated.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
Oh Great One is just for friends.
How will you feel if the ukrainian counter offensive ends in humiliation for ukraine. It wont feel good will it.
What Russia needs, to beat Ukraine, is a leader whose Mighty Weapons actually… work.
I love your snark when your losing the argument. Humiliation for the west coming in 3..2..1
3, 2, 1... Isn't that the number of days it was supposed to take for Russia to capture Kyiv? How many years do you expect it to take now?
Comments
1) If a passenger plane crashes on the Ukraine / Republic of China border, which side do bury the survivors?
2) Pineapple on pizza. Warcrime?
3) Why is Nick Palmer a God?
If we want to tackle climate change, we need to stop burning oil. Using oil for other means is less of an issue for climate change and can be handled in a carbon-neutral way. Oil is used for pharmaceuticals and other means - you might want to stop burning petrol in cars, but do you want to stop supplying medicines to the NHS?
Tackling demand for oil, especially when it comes to burning the stuff, is eminently reasonable. Tackling supply of it, solely by terminating domestic production but allowing unfettered imports to come into this country and be burnt instead, is not.
Tucker on Zelensky: "Sweaty and ratlike. A comedian turned oligarch. A persecutor of Christians. A friend of BlackRock. Shifty. Dead-eyed."
https://twitter.com/Navsteva/status/1666237481082056705?s=20
https://i.imgur.com/HIcHo30.jpg
During Biden's period, conversely, I would say we have been sometimes acting as a kind of vanguard and advance party for the more American approach ahead of more risk-averse European nations. I haven't disagreed with this most of the time, but if it continues into a position of only supporting a final settlement that makes the break-up and collapse of Russia more likely, I would probably take a different view again, more like some of my concerns about maximalist objectives at the start of the conflict.
When confronted with a choice, do the most stupid self harming thing possible. Preferably one that makes you look like a petulant child.
Do you like piggies? I bloody love them! 🥰
I don't think it's in the West's interest to hold out for the recovery of every inch of territitory in Ukraine, because that will lead to major instability in Russia.
Indeed I may be missing an obvious example but I can't think of any western European nation, democratic or republic, that has fallen under the sway of a strong man post-WWII. Franco was already in charge in Spain from the Spanish Civil War which preceded WWII.
Outside of Europe, without looking it up, Thailand is the first example that comes to mind of a monarchy that has fallen under the sway of the military and strong men and suspended democracy/rights when that has happened.
My full title in Rear Admiral General (Commanding) of the 116th Chairborne Hussars.
Oh Great One is just for friends.
{fires up the BBQ}
I would suggest reading the post again.
https://twitter.com/DAVID_STOIC1/status/1666870656577724418?s=20
During that time, the United Kingdom, under different Prime Ministers, never once wavered in its support for Ukraine.
So the UK is not some vanguard or unthinking automaton led by America. We have our own independent policy, which has been consistent regardless of the occupant of the Oval Office, and indeed consistent across multiple occupants of Downing Street too.
The choice isn't between American-policy and more risk-averse European nations, the UK has been more forthright and maximalist than both American and other western European nations. Which is what can happen when you make your own independent policy. No requirement to be either American or European, we're British and we're more maximalist and more supportive and more consistent than both. We're also to be frank right, and both Washington and Berlin have been coming around to our viewpoint.
Eastern European nations like Poland, Estonia etc (as @Cicero has often said) have been more in line with our thinking than Berlin's or Trump-era Washington's too.
Tisbury (Wiltshire)
LD Hold
LD 1028 (67%) up 19.4%
Con 507 (33%) down 0.8%
No Green as previous.
Spread bet on how long before 🔨 ?
Thankfully though the UK isn't on its own supporting Ukraine. You're on your own though.
Major stability in Russia, as in having a single authoritarian leader for the past quarter of a century, has not been a positive.
The collapse and break-up of the Muscovite Empire that is Russia could be a very good thing for the world, just as the collapse and break-up of the USSR was.
Every single inch of territory in Ukraine needs to be liberated. If that leads to instability in Russia, that's just a bonus.
As I mentioned, this hasn't been a bad thing overall so far, but that could be subject to change at any time.
Obviously the practical support would change, since we and others could not do as much as we can without US backing, but the policy direction as much as possible would be its own.
https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1666859846875107328?s=20
https://abcnews.go.com/US/pat-robertson-christian-evangelist-former-presidential-candidate-dead/story?id=99928252
The maximalism has been a long-term policy of the UK since at the very least Salisbury, if not before then.
Its not just Boris Johnson who deserves credit for the support offered to Ukraine to help them in this conflict, strong kudos should go to Theresa May and David Cameron too.
That is why Kyiv survived the initial onslaught while the German ambassador was saying there was no point sanctioning Russia 'because Kiev would fall in hours'. Because our support to them did not begin this past year or when it was a matter of short-term expediency but has been a consistent and long-term policy now for many years.
You seem to view the choice as a binary of either Europe or America and no alternatives. There is an alternative, and we've followed it: independence, working with our allies when it suited our agenda.
We've worked with America when it suited.
We've worked with Germany when it suited.
And when both America and Germany were led by people blinded by Putin, for very different reasons, we were not thankfully for us and for Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/CheburekiMan/status/1665797808631455744?s=20
All because Putin was worried the big kids are laughing at him.
@WhisperingOracle is blinded by his faith in the notion that the west is divided into "American orbit" or "European orbit" but the world is more complex than that. In 2019 both Merkel and Trump were far too soft on Putin.
Thankfully Britain was not.
That is independence, true independence, and is to be welcomed.
Wether we think the free vote on less than 10 days/slap of wrist is justice done or not, every one of us has to realise all the politics and what is at stake to have engineered this outcome. A ten day Ban would put immense pressure not just on Sunak but every single member of government. The free vote is a complete red herring, the fact it’s not a 10day ban is the main thing as it means voting to slap his wrist, or vote not to slap his wrist, or not turning up and going baseball instead is absolutely meaningless, it doesn’t carry any jeopardy now to the current powers that be. That’s the bottom line.
That’s how the history books will write this up.
Bit of a shame that all we have is Russia.
But it will have to do, until a major country comes along.
https://twitter.com/TruthSeeker84x3/status/1666662419840507905?s=20
I wouldn't agree that Britain led on Ukraine during the Obama period, when all this latest conflict began. It carefully co-ordinated and followed the Obama White House on this. Trump was then in one way an outlier and out of step with Britain, but from another point view with his administration fully behind Putin's goal of separating Britain from Europe, via supporting key figures in the Conservatie Party who backed Brexit.
True co-operation happens not through talking shops but by like-minded sovereign nations making meaningful decisions to act. Even if other nations choose not to.
Collegiality, yes, and we have that in abundance. Collectivism, no. Collectivism is working to the lowest common denominator which is why it doesn't work.
We can work with other nations in one area where it suits us, but not on another when it doesn't, because that is how independent nations work all over the globe.
Oh and Obama was President when we chose to go for Brexit.
It's too early to say whether the EPC will be just a talking shop, I think. Some British politicans thought this originally of the earliest European bodies, and so, partly, but not wholly, for that reason, chose to take a back seat.
A delicious way to go though. Do you know the recipe dates back to the Aztecs.
No, one of the best forums for working with other nations is the Prime Minister of this country and the Prime Minister of another country like Poland or Estonia etc discussing directly how they are going to get munitions into Ukraine and train the Ukrainian military.
Like-minded nations working together voluntarily has done more for European security than the United Nations, the European Union, the EPC or any other talking shop ever has done.
PB usually gets one on Saturday evening, right? So this is an unusual timing. Hmm.
Why didn’t he continue to fight until Ukraine was liberated?
Time for bed before the excessive tiredness-dyslexia kicks in again more regularly than usual ; and a good night to all !
Talk about failure to perform….
Even if the bear maybe has some good points to growl “but the grass doesn’t actually grow greener over there you idiots, it comes with strings attached” every brexiteer in UK can hardly argue when the green grass comes at a price they hated - but it’s not the bears decision at the end of the day, that’s the principle, Ukraine is not Russia. In 1939 70+% population of Lyiv was polish. The bear does not speak for Ukrainians, the bear does not decide for Ukrainians, Ukrainians are not Russian. Never have been, never will be.
Maybe they are just getting close to their preferred successor in Russia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Mishustin
Mixed in with the charade of standing by a friend, like we would want to appear on a besties side even when thinking them wrong and making idiotic mistakes?
Rather effective at killing Russian troops by all accounts.
Update: Source reliability warning: The source is one D Trump...
Just Trump as the source though.
it is fabulously lost in l”Amerique Profonde
America is le fucked