We do need to increase defence spending as do the EU 27, but finding the money means hard and unpopular choices
Reports on how well the US - Russia talks have gone by each party deem them a success as Trump brings Putin in from the cold and looks at strengthening the relationship between the countries
And by the way they did talk about Ukraine, but apparently not more important than getting Russia back into the international community
The world has changed in just a few weeks and with unknown consequences and alliances
It is time for the boomers, who have lived long and rather gilded lives thanks to eighty years of peace in europe, to dig deep and stump up for the defence costs that may stop their kids and grandkids having to fight fascism again on foreign soils.
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." George Washington
I would say that as someone born during the war and has experienced rationing, little money, struggled in our early married life to pay a mortgage whilst my wife stayed at home to bring up our 3 children (59, 53, 50) and as a consequence has an annual pension of just over £5,000, built 2 businesses and paid lots of tax and continue to do so, that everyone should pay their taxes and it is for the government to manage those taxes responsibly and take hard unpopular decisions where necessary.
Big G I generally agree the generational finger pointing is pointless and divisive. I would, though, love a world in which one of my wife or I could afford to stay home to look after our kids.
Gender inequality aside, that your wife was able to do this isn't something to complain about.
I am not complaining about it at all and to be fair I managed our affairs to take into account my wife's pension
Indeed I wish all mothers could stay at home and bring up their children but society has moved on and not for the better
I see the Americans have agreed to normalise relations with Russia, including discussions about trade barriers.
So that’s 5-0 to Russia.
So what happens to the war crimes allegations and sanctions ?
They're not really compatible with the sort of normalisation Rubio was talking of today. And Trump is likely to be far more direct about making a deal than is Rubio (who was once something of a hawk).
Where the hell is the US opposition to Trump on all this? Are they going ballistic domestically and we just aren’t seeing it, or are they cowards?
This is capitulation to Russia by a Republican (*channels Kinnock*) - a REPUBLICAN) - President. Where is GWB? Where is Romney? Oh if only John McCain had lived.
That clip of "Tricky Dickie" Nixon shows what a political and intellectual giant even he was, compared with the current batch of dandiprats
And, more critically than ever, we need someone to work out what precisely defence spending needs, in the modern era. The Ukrainians with their masses of drones have shown that it doesn’t necessarily mean the same expensive tanks and ships and stuff that has been the assumption since 1945.
There's some really interesting things happening around various types of drones.
This one from Helsing is trailed as an AI drone, but I'm interested that they are pursuing a manufacturing model similar to the shadow factories used in the UK in WW2 - that is multiple factories in different countries, which would be somewhat more resilient to hybrid attacks.
I know you're not Elon Musk, but why on earth does slaughtering hundreds of thousands of your countrymen in a pointless invasion of another country count as "competent leadership" ?
How do you know he's not Elon Musk? The constant criticism of Elon would be the perfect cover.
I wouldn't want to be Musk. Not ever.
I have a good life. Besides a few rather sh*tty things happening, I've had a good life. (touches wood). We have a house with no mortgage, money in the bank and in investments, and an income that allows one of us not to work. We're all healthy and happy. Steve Jobs' riches didn't save him from an early grave.
What would I gain from being richer than Crassus? I'm happy; and I'm pretty sure Musk isn't happy. I've also achieved stuff he hasn't.
In fact, Musk strikes me as being a deeply unhappy person.
There's the elephant in the room. One of you can afford not to work. Until recently, all families had that.
@yarotrof Zelensky: it seems like Russia and the U.S. are preparing an ultimatum to Ukraine, talking about Ukraine without Ukraine. We didn’t accept ultimatums in 2022, when the situation was much more serious and nobody was helping us, and I have no intention of accepting any ultimatums now.
Start from the basis that we will almost double defence spending - from approx £54 billion this year to £100 billion as soon as possible.
So we are looking for an extra £46 billion a year
It has been estimated that getting rid of the triple lock will save £10 billion a year. It was estimated by a cross party group in 2018 that increasing NI by 1p in the pound would raise £12 billion a year. It has also been estimated that making penioners pay NI when they work would raise an additional £1.5 billion a year
Yes these are estimates but they are from reliable sources inside and outside Government not just numbers plucked out of the air.
So straight away we are just over half way to the requireed £46 billion additinal without even having to think too hard about it.
And these are annual savings, not one offs. Which makes them more sustainable.
I am sure there are others on here who can suggest similar savings/increases to bridge that gap.
There's no point at all in carbon capture schemes any more, so that's another few bob.
The money for NZT/NEP is already committed, and will start to flow out of the Treasury in 2028 at the earliest.
Other projects due to reach FID in the coming months, then the full £22 bn for Track 1 (T1) initial phase will be committed. £2.2 bn a year over a decade, near enough.
However, the rest of T1, T1x and T2 could be paused. I reckon that lot would cost government another £30 bn, based on the same funding formula as T1.
Always happy to assist, when it comes to CCS.
The proposal, as I understand it, is for a lot of the funding to be via a further levy on consumer bills.
@yarotrof Zelensky: it seems like Russia and the U.S. are preparing an ultimatum to Ukraine, talking about Ukraine without Ukraine. We didn’t accept ultimatums in 2022, when the situation was much more serious and nobody was helping us, and I have no intention of accepting any ultimatums now.
@yarotrof Zelensky: it seems like Russia and the U.S. are preparing an ultimatum to Ukraine, talking about Ukraine without Ukraine. We didn’t accept ultimatums in 2022, when the situation was much more serious and nobody was helping us, and I have no intention of accepting any ultimatums now.
We have for so many years blithely assumed that the Americans would be there. We have become lazy, and happy to run down our armed forces, because there wasn't going to be a need for a conventional army, navy and air force - it was all about terrorism. And yet here we are. What we do have is the excellent nucleus of larger forces, if we have the desire and money to do it, we can increase the size of the army, we can buy planes and drones. But as always voters are happy for tax raises on other people.
I don't disagree. But we do need to assess the probability of Russia seeking territorial conquest outside Ukraine, and in particular against NATO members. A lot of the comments on this thread seem to put that probability very high, whereas the difficulty that Russia has experienced in Ukraine suggests that directly taking on a NATO country is really unlikely. We might wish to intervene in a different conflict, so the answer may not be nothing even if we don't expect a direct threat to a NATO member, but the assessment needs to be made.
Russia will be emboldened by the outcome whatever settlement is made over Ukraine. It seems likely to give it at least a large fraction of what it wants - and Ukraine is a vastly larger and stronger opponent than any of the Baltic States, which are the next obvious targets. Why would Putin or his doubtless even more revolting successors do anything but keep picking off chunks of territory, unless they are either beaten in battle or convinced that they would lose if they tried. Arming Europe to the teeth is how the latter is achieved and the former averted.
The Russians can't be trusted and should be viewed as enemies regardless of what happens next over Ukraine. "They might not do anything so everything's peachy" is not the way to deal with enemies.
Georgia is a more obvious next target.
If Russia gets what it wants in a deal with Trump, then a limited form of conflict probing the frontline NATO states, of the sort it engaged in against Ukraine between the annexation of Crimea and the outright invasion of 2022, is more likely.
Capturing Narva would be the equivalent of the Crimea invasion.
@yarotrof Zelensky: it seems like Russia and the U.S. are preparing an ultimatum to Ukraine, talking about Ukraine without Ukraine. We didn’t accept ultimatums in 2022, when the situation was much more serious and nobody was helping us, and I have no intention of accepting any ultimatums now.
@yarotrof Zelensky: it seems like Russia and the U.S. are preparing an ultimatum to Ukraine, talking about Ukraine without Ukraine. We didn’t accept ultimatums in 2022, when the situation was much more serious and nobody was helping us, and I have no intention of accepting any ultimatums now.
I see the Americans have agreed to normalise relations with Russia, including discussions about trade barriers.
So that’s 5-0 to Russia.
So what happens to the war crimes allegations and sanctions ?
They're not really compatible with the sort of normalisation Rubio was talking of today. And Trump is likely to be far more direct about making a deal than is Rubio (who was once something of a hawk).
Personally, I think that they are one of the things that should be reasserted, along with Russia required to provide reparations, and unlocking £100bn or so of the frozen Russian assets at £3-4bn a month for Ukraine to use for either relief or military purposes as they choose.
That would help stake out a distinctive European position from the Usonian imperialist one, make Russia be aware that they will not get away with it, and also push back hard at the Trump regime's attempts to undermine international law *.
* Remember that Trump issued an Executive Order attacking the ICC, and targeting the individuals who work there with the sort of personal sanctions he is imo likely to remove from Russians. He has also removed / reduced or closed down corruption hunting and crime fighting organisation, including approximate USA versions of Trading Standards and the FCA / FSCS.
We do need to increase defence spending as do the EU 27, but finding the money means hard and unpopular choices
Reports on how well the US - Russia talks have gone by each party deem them a success as Trump brings Putin in from the cold and looks at strengthening the relationship between the countries
And by the way they did talk about Ukraine, but apparently not more important than getting Russia back into the international community
The world has changed in just a few weeks and with unknown consequences and alliances
It is time for the boomers, who have lived long and rather gilded lives thanks to eighty years of peace in europe, to dig deep and stump up for the defence costs that may stop their kids and grandkids having to fight fascism again on foreign soils.
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." George Washington
The greedy grifters are always looking to pick pensioners pockets rather than go earn a living. @rottenborough
We have for so many years blithely assumed that the Americans would be there. We have become lazy, and happy to run down our armed forces, because there wasn't going to be a need for a conventional army, navy and air force - it was all about terrorism. And yet here we are. What we do have is the excellent nucleus of larger forces, if we have the desire and money to do it, we can increase the size of the army, we can buy planes and drones. But as always voters are happy for tax raises on other people.
I don't disagree. But we do need to assess the probability of Russia seeking territorial conquest outside Ukraine, and in particular against NATO members. A lot of the comments on this thread seem to put that probability very high, whereas the difficulty that Russia has experienced in Ukraine suggests that directly taking on a NATO country is really unlikely. We might wish to intervene in a different conflict, so the answer may not be nothing even if we don't expect a direct threat to a NATO member, but the assessment needs to be made.
So you're already conceding further "territorial conquest" in Ukraine ?
@yarotrof Zelensky: it seems like Russia and the U.S. are preparing an ultimatum to Ukraine, talking about Ukraine without Ukraine. We didn’t accept ultimatums in 2022, when the situation was much more serious and nobody was helping us, and I have no intention of accepting any ultimatums now.
We do need to increase defence spending as do the EU 27, but finding the money means hard and unpopular choices
Reports on how well the US - Russia talks have gone by each party deem them a success as Trump brings Putin in from the cold and looks at strengthening the relationship between the countries
And by the way they did talk about Ukraine, but apparently not more important than getting Russia back into the international community
The world has changed in just a few weeks and with unknown consequences and alliances
It is time for the boomers, who have lived long and rather gilded lives thanks to eighty years of peace in europe, to dig deep and stump up for the defence costs that may stop their kids and grandkids having to fight fascism again on foreign soils.
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." George Washington
I would say that as someone born during the war and has experienced rationing, little money, struggled in our early married life to pay a mortgage whilst my wife stayed at home to bring up our 3 children (59, 53, 50) and as a consequence has an annual pension of just over £5,000, built 2 businesses and paid lots of tax and continue to do so, that everyone should pay their taxes and it is for the government to manage those taxes responsibly and take hard unpopular decisions where necessary.
Big G I generally agree the generational finger pointing is pointless and divisive. I would, though, love a world in which one of my wife or I could afford to stay home to look after our kids.
Gender inequality aside, that your wife was able to do this isn't something to complain about.
I am not complaining about it at all and to be fair I managed our affairs to take into account my wife's pension
Indeed I wish all mothers could stay at home and bring up their children but society has moved on and not for the better
G they want everything on a plate nowadays and especially if it is someone else's hard earned cash. No backbones, no morals and no principles, just greed , bigger everything for free is their warcry.
We have for so many years blithely assumed that the Americans would be there. We have become lazy, and happy to run down our armed forces, because there wasn't going to be a need for a conventional army, navy and air force - it was all about terrorism. And yet here we are. What we do have is the excellent nucleus of larger forces, if we have the desire and money to do it, we can increase the size of the army, we can buy planes and drones. But as always voters are happy for tax raises on other people.
I don't disagree. But we do need to assess the probability of Russia seeking territorial conquest outside Ukraine, and in particular against NATO members. A lot of the comments on this thread seem to put that probability very high, whereas the difficulty that Russia has experienced in Ukraine suggests that directly taking on a NATO country is really unlikely. We might wish to intervene in a different conflict, so the answer may not be nothing even if we don't expect a direct threat to a NATO member, but the assessment needs to be made.
So you're already conceding further "territorial conquest" in Ukraine ?
Uk is full of surrender monkey russian shills.
Nick is not that. But I think he's wrong in his analysis.
In my view, when considering the degree to which we can rely on USA as a future ally, we need to distinguish between: - USA as predictably isolationist; and - USA as nefarious actor undermining European stability in favour of a 'spheres of influence' multipolar world that excludes us.
In the former case I can see that we can continue to have a productive alliance, though on different terms than previously. In the latter case we clearly need to ally with Europe against USA.
Thus a big cut in military expenditure in USA doesn't really bother me, whereas the current shenanigans in Riyadh seem much more dodgy.
Molotov-Rippentrop….. sorry sorry. I mean Lavrov-Rubio Pact.
Rubio signals sanctions on Russia to be lifted after talks with Lavrov et al: “There are sanctions that were imposed as a result of this conflict,” Rubio said. “In order to bring an end to any conflict, there has to be concessions made by all sides.”
We have for so many years blithely assumed that the Americans would be there. We have become lazy, and happy to run down our armed forces, because there wasn't going to be a need for a conventional army, navy and air force - it was all about terrorism. And yet here we are. What we do have is the excellent nucleus of larger forces, if we have the desire and money to do it, we can increase the size of the army, we can buy planes and drones. But as always voters are happy for tax raises on other people.
I don't disagree. But we do need to assess the probability of Russia seeking territorial conquest outside Ukraine, and in particular against NATO members. A lot of the comments on this thread seem to put that probability very high, whereas the difficulty that Russia has experienced in Ukraine suggests that directly taking on a NATO country is really unlikely. We might wish to intervene in a different conflict, so the answer may not be nothing even if we don't expect a direct threat to a NATO member, but the assessment needs to be made.
So you're already conceding further "territorial conquest" in Ukraine ?
Uk is full of surrender monkey russian shills.
Nick is not that. But I think he's wrong in his analysis.
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
Rubio signals sanctions on Russia to be lifted after talks with Lavrov et al: “There are sanctions that were imposed as a result of this conflict,” Rubio said. “In order to bring an end to any conflict, there has to be concessions made by all sides.”
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
Israel should be a valuable lesson to the Ukraine and to Taiwan. And to us.
And, more critically than ever, we need someone to work out what precisely defence spending needs, in the modern era. The Ukrainians with their masses of drones have shown that it doesn’t necessarily mean the same expensive tanks and ships and stuff that has been the assumption since 1945.
More Europe means more dissent and nothing getting done. What we need are those countries who are aligned to just get on with things outside of any existing artificial framework. Britain, France, the Baltic and Scandinavian countries, Poland, Canada and some ofvthe smaller European states.
Don't wait for the EU or a compromised NATO to sort themselves out.
Absolutely correct.
European defence needs to based on the UK-led JEF, bringing in France as co-lead.
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
I wouldn't blame Starmer if he followed Churchill's example and wanted the UK and France to merge into one country.
Where the hell is the US opposition to Trump on all this? Are they going ballistic domestically and we just aren’t seeing it, or are they cowards?
This is capitulation to Russia by a Republican (*channels Kinnock*) - a REPUBLICAN) - President. Where is GWB? Where is Romney? Oh if only John McCain had lived.
That clip of "Tricky Dickie" Nixon shows what a political and intellectual giant even he was, compared with the current batch of dandiprats
Placebo frontman Brian Molko is being charged with defamation after appearing to call the Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, a “piece of shit, fascist, racist” in Italian while performing at a festival in Turin in 2023.
...
In May, the philosopher Donatella Di Cesare, who was being sued by Meloni’s brother-in-law for comparing one of his speeches to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, claimed that her government was strategically using defamation suits to silence public intellectuals. Meloni’s first year in office recorded the highest number of lawsuits against public participation, according to the European parliament’s civil liberties committee.
Yes, but then again Italians are forever initiating legal proceedings against each other over the most trivial matters, and since it often takes over a decade before anything actually gets to court, there is plenty of time for such cases to go away following a strategically purchased present for someone inside the process.
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
The French ones anyway. Ours are not truly independent of the USA.
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
Nuclear proliferation itself is very dangerous. Rather, Britain needs to transition to operational nuclear independence, and both Britain and France need to commit to increasing stockpiles.
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
I hope they fixed ours. The last test I saw didn’t inspire confidence. Can we use them without American support systems? I wouldn’t count on it.
Placebo frontman Brian Molko is being charged with defamation after appearing to call the Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, a “piece of shit, fascist, racist” in Italian while performing at a festival in Turin in 2023.
...
In May, the philosopher Donatella Di Cesare, who was being sued by Meloni’s brother-in-law for comparing one of his speeches to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, claimed that her government was strategically using defamation suits to silence public intellectuals. Meloni’s first year in office recorded the highest number of lawsuits against public participation, according to the European parliament’s civil liberties committee.
The right-wing definition of "free speech" is the freedom to hold views they approve of, and the freedom to oppress views they disapprove of. This is why I was not impressed by Kemi's speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WCQ6-QbTDQ
MoD can have the money to build up our forces in response to Russia threat only if they reform procurement, and cut some of the pointless stuff that doesn't contribute to our defence. No need for aircraft carrier sitting ducks for instance. Frankly I'm not sure there's any need to procure anything that takes 30 years to make for the military... New tech makes things obsolete pretty fast these days...
I assume those of you saying a Cold War scenario doesn’t require aircraft carriers haven’t ever looked at the old Cold War defence plans? They were pivotal to it. Absent the U.S. we probably need another carrier, and for all three to have full air groups. So do the French.
Not a military expert but my understanding is they are too easy to sink/incapacitate with missiles. If we are defending against a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe, I think other things will be needed a lot more. If proper military experts say what we need is aircraft carriers then fine, but I'm very suspicious of people who want big ships for national prestige which certainly seems a motivation.
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
I wouldn't blame Starmer if he followed Churchill's example and wanted the UK and France to merge into one country.
Things are that serious.
As Foxy points out - one problem is that our Nukes are 50% American and that wasn’t a problem until January.
Rubio signals sanctions on Russia to be lifted after talks with Lavrov et al: “There are sanctions that were imposed as a result of this conflict,” Rubio said. “In order to bring an end to any conflict, there has to be concessions made by all sides.”
The US supports Russia in Eastern Europe, and Russia supports the US in Canada. And possibly Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. Makes perfect sense.
Btw, those Israelis thinking MAGA is good news for Israel couldn't be more wrong. If the US can abandon its European allies, threaten Canada, and embrace Putin, it can sure as hell abandon Israel.
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
Nuclear proliferation itself is very dangerous. Rather, Britain needs to transition to operational nuclear independence, and both Britain and France need to commit to increasing stockpiles.
Ditching Trident immediately doesn't seem feasible, but I think we need to be absolutely phasing it out asap and in the meantime rebuilding our tactical nuclear programme (which we still had until that tosspot Blair ditched it), with a wide variety of delivery systems. That is far more threatening to world troublemakers than a doomsday weapon we can only use if we've been obliterated, and even then probably wouldn't work.
So the USA and Russia are essentially negotiating the spoils of war . Ukraine is in an impossible position as Trump will say refuse to accept the deal and we pull all further support .
We should all be under no illusions. The USA is actively working against the UK and the EU and are willing to sell out Ukraine .
We do need to increase defence spending as do the EU 27, but finding the money means hard and unpopular choices
Reports on how well the US - Russia talks have gone by each party deem them a success as Trump brings Putin in from the cold and looks at strengthening the relationship between the countries
And by the way they did talk about Ukraine, but apparently not more important than getting Russia back into the international community
The world has changed in just a few weeks and with unknown consequences and alliances
It is time for the boomers, who have lived long and rather gilded lives thanks to eighty years of peace in europe, to dig deep and stump up for the defence costs that may stop their kids and grandkids having to fight fascism again on foreign soils.
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." George Washington
I assume they're not "people like you" ?
Actually, technically I am classed as a boomer. Right on the cusp. But I think I am far more gen x.
Rubio signals sanctions on Russia to be lifted after talks with Lavrov et al: “There are sanctions that were imposed as a result of this conflict,” Rubio said. “In order to bring an end to any conflict, there has to be concessions made by all sides.”
The US supports Russia in Eastern Europe, and Russia supports the US in Canada. And possibly Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. Makes perfect sense.
Btw, those Israelis thinking MAGA is good news for Israel couldn't be more wrong. If the US can abandon its European allies, threaten Canada, and embrace Putin, it can sure as hell abandon Israel.
After the fall of the MAGA clique it is very likely that Israel will be spurned.
Rubio signals sanctions on Russia to be lifted after talks with Lavrov et al: “There are sanctions that were imposed as a result of this conflict,” Rubio said. “In order to bring an end to any conflict, there has to be concessions made by all sides.”
The sanctions are effectively over already, with Musk dismantling the agencies that enforce them.
It's a capitulation. They are treating Ukraine as the aggressor.
So the USA and Russia are essentially negotiating the spoils of war . Ukraine is in an impossible position as Trump will say refuse to accept the deal and we pull all further support .
We should all be under no illusions. The USA is actively working against the UK and the EU and are willing to sell out Ukraine .
Why is being willing to sell out Ukraine actively working against UK interests? I can't see what one foreign country's attitude to two other foreign countries has to do woth UK interests at all personally. If we're really talking about UK interests, crudely they are best served by a quick end to the fighting, with the chance to save on military aid, and decrease in the cost of energy.
So the USA and Russia are essentially negotiating the spoils of war . Ukraine is in an impossible position as Trump will say refuse to accept the deal and we pull all further support .
We should all be under no illusions. The USA is actively working against the UK and the EU and are willing to sell out Ukraine .
MoD can have the money to build up our forces in response to Russia threat only if they reform procurement, and cut some of the pointless stuff that doesn't contribute to our defence. No need for aircraft carrier sitting ducks for instance. Frankly I'm not sure there's any need to procure anything that takes 30 years to make for the military... New tech makes things obsolete pretty fast these days...
I assume those of you saying a Cold War scenario doesn’t require aircraft carriers haven’t ever looked at the old Cold War defence plans? They were pivotal to it. Absent the U.S. we probably need another carrier, and for all three to have full air groups. So do the French.
Not a military expert but my understanding is they are too easy to sink/incapacitate with missiles...
But that doesn't mean they're obsolute. You use what you have until something better comes along. What would you replace a carrier with? Do you have drones that can strike tens of thousands of miles away?
Placebo frontman Brian Molko is being charged with defamation after appearing to call the Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, a “piece of shit, fascist, racist” in Italian while performing at a festival in Turin in 2023.
...
In May, the philosopher Donatella Di Cesare, who was being sued by Meloni’s brother-in-law for comparing one of his speeches to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, claimed that her government was strategically using defamation suits to silence public intellectuals. Meloni’s first year in office recorded the highest number of lawsuits against public participation, according to the European parliament’s civil liberties committee.
The right-wing definition of "free speech" is the freedom to hold views they approve of, and the freedom to oppress views they disapprove of. This is why I was not impressed by Kemi's speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WCQ6-QbTDQ
Why specifically did you feel she played into your aphorism?
I see the Americans have agreed to normalise relations with Russia, including discussions about trade barriers.
So that’s 5-0 to Russia.
So what happens to the war crimes allegations and sanctions ?
What are they?
Without going in to too much detail ...
Remember Bucha? The Theatre bombing in Mariupol with hundreds of civilians sheltering in the basement? Plus all those bombings of civilians, attacks on hospitals, murders of POWs after they had surrendered, torture of POWs, stealing of 20k-30k or more of Ukrainian children to be brought up as Russians, extensive use of chemical weapons (including tear gas type things that meet the definition), sexual crimes against males and females.
I saw an early video of a Ukrainian soldier being castrated on the spot after capture, but I don't like watching them. That was something the Japanese used to do in WW2 to POWs; that was why X-Craft operations were pulled.
More recently the Russians have been sending drones out to hunt down civilians in Kherson and elsewhere.
Ukraine the Latest cover all these angles from time to time, including interviewing those in the units doing investigations and evidence gathering for when it comes to prosecution afterwards.
There's no end it. And some very dedicated, very focused, NGOs, gathering evidence to give to the ICC. Many videos on Youtube or NPR etc documentaries. Links:
I know you're not Elon Musk, but why on earth does slaughtering hundreds of thousands of your countrymen in a pointless invasion of another country count as "competent leadership" ?
How do you know he's not Elon Musk? The constant criticism of Elon would be the perfect cover.
I wouldn't want to be Musk. Not ever.
I have a good life. Besides a few rather sh*tty things happening, I've had a good life. (touches wood). We have a house with no mortgage, money in the bank and in investments, and an income that allows one of us not to work. We're all healthy and happy. Steve Jobs' riches didn't save him from an early grave.
What would I gain from being richer than Crassus? I'm happy; and I'm pretty sure Musk isn't happy. I've also achieved stuff he hasn't.
In fact, Musk strikes me as being a deeply unhappy person.
So what do you get from coming on here and regularly being a shit to complete strangers given you have such a happy and fulfilled life 🤷♂️
BTW it’s a rhetorical question 👍
Thanks for your contribution. It is valued.
(If you are talking about being a shit to complete strangers; your post above - and others to me - are classic examples.)
So the USA and Russia are essentially negotiating the spoils of war . Ukraine is in an impossible position as Trump will say refuse to accept the deal and we pull all further support .
We should all be under no illusions. The USA is actively working against the UK and the EU and are willing to sell out Ukraine .
Why is being willing to sell out Ukraine actively working against UK interests? I can't see what one foreign country's attitude to two other foreign countries has to do woth UK interests at all personally. If we're really talking about UK interests, crudely they are best served by a quick end to the fighting, with the chance to save on military aid, and decrease in the cost of energy.
Because Putin will be enabled by this sell out . Everyone wants the war to end but Russia needs to pay a price and not be rewarded for its aggression .
So the USA and Russia are essentially negotiating the spoils of war . Ukraine is in an impossible position as Trump will say refuse to accept the deal and we pull all further support .
We should all be under no illusions. The USA is actively working against the UK and the EU and are willing to sell out Ukraine .
In trying to understand this it's helpful to remember that for Trump everything is personal.
He quite literally HATES Biden and Obama.
And so, of course, does Putin. Biden humiliated him when he visited Kyiv, as did Obama when he publicly dismissed Russia as a second class regional power.
And then there's Zelenskyy, who refused Trump's attempts to embroil Ukraine in Trump's witch-hunt against Biden.
And as for the whiny Europeans...
The Trump - Putin relationship? Well, they are fellow capos. Trump took Putin's praise as that due owing from one big man to another.
I very much doubt whether the polling as of this week about the merits of the Labour government and Starmer, or our opinions that that we prefer not to pay much for our defence are going to matter much by the time of the next election.
Between now and 2029 Starmer has the opportunity and possibility of being showing himself to be a great European leader in hard times, and the UK to be part of a renewed western enterprise. If this is so and he succeeds he goes in the history books anyway. If this is so and he fails, then none of today's polling opinions will matter a jot.
As a member of the 1954 cohort, current times are like the death of HM QE II multiplied by 100. Stuff that has been background and backbone of your entire seventy years as a UK citizen have gone; the extent to which in unexpressed ways we are looking to Labour, Starmer and a sense of national unity to lead us in new times is, I think, only slowly dawning.
On topic, credit where it’s due so well done to Keir Starmer. Thankfully Ukraine aid is less of a partisan issue in the UK than almost anywhere else.
You sound surprised. It's the right that is selling out Ukraine, whether that's Trump in the US or Reform here, not the left. The sooner you accept that the better, as your posts become ever more unhinged.
Start from the basis that we will almost double defence spending - from approx £54 billion this year to £100 billion as soon as possible.
So we are looking for an extra £46 billion a year
It has been estimated that getting rid of the triple lock will save £10 billion a year. It was estimated by a cross party group in 2018 that increasing NI by 1p in the pound would raise £12 billion a year. It has also been estimated that making penioners pay NI when they work would raise an additional £1.5 billion a year
Yes these are estimates but they are from reliable sources inside and outside Government not just numbers plucked out of the air.
So straight away we are just over half way to the requireed £46 billion additinal without even having to think too hard about it.
And these are annual savings, not one offs. Which makes them more sustainable.
I am sure there are others on here who can suggest similar savings/increases to bridge that gap.
There's no point at all in carbon capture schemes any more, so that's another few bob.
The money for NZT/NEP is already committed, and will start to flow out of the Treasury in 2028 at the earliest.
Other projects due to reach FID in the coming months, then the full £22 bn for Track 1 (T1) initial phase will be committed. £2.2 bn a year over a decade, near enough.
However, the rest of T1, T1x and T2 could be paused. I reckon that lot would cost government another £30 bn, based on the same funding formula as T1.
Always happy to assist, when it comes to CCS.
The proposal, as I understand it, is for a lot of the funding to be via a further levy on consumer bills.
Wherever the money comes from, I know where it goes.
So the USA and Russia are essentially negotiating the spoils of war . Ukraine is in an impossible position as Trump will say refuse to accept the deal and we pull all further support .
We should all be under no illusions. The USA is actively working against the UK and the EU and are willing to sell out Ukraine .
Why is being willing to sell out Ukraine actively working against UK interests? I can't see what one foreign country's attitude to two other foreign countries has to do woth UK interests at all personally. If we're really talking about UK interests, crudely they are best served by a quick end to the fighting, with the chance to save on military aid, and decrease in the cost of energy.
1938 should tell you why a quarrel in a faraway country, between people of whom we know nothing; soon becomes our interest.
Russia is our enemy. Their rhetoric alone tells you that. Why do you want our enemy to have more territory, resources and power?
I see the Americans have agreed to normalise relations with Russia, including discussions about trade barriers.
So that’s 5-0 to Russia.
So what happens to the war crimes allegations and sanctions ?
What are they?
Without going in to too much detail ...
Remember Bucha? The Theatre bombing in Mariupol with hundreds of civilians sheltering in the basement? Plus all those bombings of civilians, attacks on hospitals, murders of POWs after they had surrendered, torture of POWs, stealing of 20k-30k or more of Ukrainian children to be brought up as Russians, extensive use of chemical weapons (including tear gas type things that meet the definition), sexual crimes against males and females.
I saw an early video of a Ukrainian soldier being castrated on the spot after capture, but I don't like watching them. That was something the Japanese used to do in WW2 to POWs; that was why X-Craft operations were pulled.
More recently the Russians have been sending drones out to hunt down civilians in Kherson and elsewhere.
Ukraine the Latest cover all these angles from time to time, including interviewing those in the units doing investigations and evidence gathering for when it comes to prosecution afterwards.
There's no end it. And some very dedicated, very focused, NGOs, gathering evidence to give to the ICC. Many videos on Youtube or NPR etc documentaries. Links:
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
The French ones anyway. Ours are not truly independent of the USA.
Yes they are. Don’t spread this.
I suspect you mean in the long term, refurbing the missiles sense, which is somewhat correct but has limited meaning, because we could take other choices before it was a major issue.
Placebo frontman Brian Molko is being charged with defamation after appearing to call the Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, a “piece of shit, fascist, racist” in Italian while performing at a festival in Turin in 2023.
...
In May, the philosopher Donatella Di Cesare, who was being sued by Meloni’s brother-in-law for comparing one of his speeches to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, claimed that her government was strategically using defamation suits to silence public intellectuals. Meloni’s first year in office recorded the highest number of lawsuits against public participation, according to the European parliament’s civil liberties committee.
The right-wing definition of "free speech" is the freedom to hold views they approve of, and the freedom to oppress views they disapprove of. This is why I was not impressed by Kemi's speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WCQ6-QbTDQ
Why specifically did you feel she played into your aphorism?
She didn't mention unsuppressing speech that wasn't woke and she implied the impression of speech that was woke. Unsuppressing free speech has a benefit and a cost. The benefit is enabling speech X that one likes. The cost is enabling speech that one doesn't like. In my opinion the former outweighs the latter and the presumption should be on enabling, not suppressing. But she didn't.
MoD can have the money to build up our forces in response to Russia threat only if they reform procurement, and cut some of the pointless stuff that doesn't contribute to our defence. No need for aircraft carrier sitting ducks for instance. Frankly I'm not sure there's any need to procure anything that takes 30 years to make for the military... New tech makes things obsolete pretty fast these days...
I assume those of you saying a Cold War scenario doesn’t require aircraft carriers haven’t ever looked at the old Cold War defence plans? They were pivotal to it. Absent the U.S. we probably need another carrier, and for all three to have full air groups. So do the French.
Not a military expert but my understanding is they are too easy to sink/incapacitate with missiles...
But that doesn't mean they're obsolute. You use what you have until something better comes along. What would you replace a carrier with? Do you have drones that can strike tens of thousands of miles away?
Also: big ocean. Small carrier. You’d use them differently vs. Russia.
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
The French ones anyway. Ours are not truly independent of the USA.
Yes they are. Don’t spread this.
I suspect you mean in the long term, refurbing the missiles sense, which is somewhat correct but has limited meaning, because we could take other choices before it was a major issue.
What evidence do you have to back up your viewpoint?
I very much doubt whether the polling as of this week about the merits of the Labour government and Starmer, or our opinions that that we prefer not to pay much for our defence are going to matter much by the time of the next election.
Between now and 2029 Starmer has the opportunity and possibility of being showing himself to be a great European leader in hard times, and the UK to be part of a renewed western enterprise. If this is so and he succeeds he goes in the history books anyway. If this is so and he fails, then none of today's polling opinions will matter a jot.
As a member of the 1954 cohort, current times are like the death of HM QE II multiplied by 100. Stuff that has been background and backbone of your entire seventy years as a UK citizen have gone; the extent to which in unexpressed ways we are looking to Labour, Starmer and a sense of national unity to lead us in new times is, I think, only slowly dawning.
And yet so many "patriots" get tumescent for owt that does down our elected government.
U.S. geopolitical until about 5 minutes ago was to oppose China, Russia and Iran, with the support of regional deputies.
The UK was favoured deputy in Europe and in NATO. Israel in the Middle East. Japan in East Asia. Australia in South Asia.
It’s no longer really obvious what US strategy is.
Trump doesn't have a strategy - that would require things he doesn't understand. Instead he sees issues and tries to fix them without looking at any bigger picture. Hence taxing cars and oil from Canada not realising that the companies most impacted are Ford and GM and the refineries in Chicago / the NE USA built to refine the crude oil Canada drills.
On topic, credit where it’s due so well done to Keir Starmer. Thankfully Ukraine aid is less of a partisan issue in the UK than almost anywhere else.
You sound surprised. It's the right that is selling out Ukraine, whether that's Trump in the US or Reform here, not the left. The sooner you accept that the better, as your posts become ever more unhinged.
Mainstream left. Many of the Corbynites - as we see on here - are thoroughly on team Russia and Bucha.
MoD can have the money to build up our forces in response to Russia threat only if they reform procurement, and cut some of the pointless stuff that doesn't contribute to our defence. No need for aircraft carrier sitting ducks for instance. Frankly I'm not sure there's any need to procure anything that takes 30 years to make for the military... New tech makes things obsolete pretty fast these days...
I assume those of you saying a Cold War scenario doesn’t require aircraft carriers haven’t ever looked at the old Cold War defence plans? They were pivotal to it. Absent the U.S. we probably need another carrier, and for all three to have full air groups. So do the French.
Not a military expert but my understanding is they are too easy to sink/incapacitate with missiles...
But that doesn't mean they're obsolute. You use what you have until something better comes along. What would you replace a carrier with? Do you have drones that can strike tens of thousands of miles away?
Not sure I need to strike something tens of thousands of miles away? It's 10k miles to Sydney. Moscow is 2,000 miles.
But if carriers are sitting ducks, we are better off scrapping them and investing in something else.
Never thought I would be living through this century's equivalent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as the US and Russia carve up Ukraine: the Poland of our time (or possibly the Czechoslovakia).
There are so many echoes of the 1930s these days - and not just in foreign policy. It's really quite frightening.
Can we junk the term “Usonian” please? Sorry, but it makes the users look retarded.
American or U.S. is fine.
IMO no . Sorry.
America is a continent not a country, so I think we need something to refer to the country that is accurate. I'm happy with US or USA for the country's noun, but I don't think US is a suitable adjective most of the time.
"Usonian" has been around since it was coined by Frank Lloyd-Wright in 1937. There is earlier history back to 1800, but I think FLW was the one who counts.
So the USA and Russia are essentially negotiating the spoils of war . Ukraine is in an impossible position as Trump will say refuse to accept the deal and we pull all further support .
We should all be under no illusions. The USA is actively working against the UK and the EU and are willing to sell out Ukraine .
Why is being willing to sell out Ukraine actively working against UK interests? I can't see what one foreign country's attitude to two other foreign countries has to do woth UK interests at all personally. If we're really talking about UK interests, crudely they are best served by a quick end to the fighting, with the chance to save on military aid, and decrease in the cost of energy.
1938 should tell you why a quarrel in a faraway country, between people of whom we know nothing; soon becomes our interest.
Russia is our enemy. Their rhetoric alone tells you that. Why do you want our enemy to have more territory, resources and power?
The US is now our enemy too I think. It's certainly not a friend or a reliable ally anymore.
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
The French ones anyway. Ours are not truly independent of the USA.
Yes they are. Don’t spread this.
I suspect you mean in the long term, refurbing the missiles sense, which is somewhat correct but has limited meaning, because we could take other choices before it was a major issue.
What evidence do you have to back up your viewpoint?
Google it. This is all publicly available. Just stick to reputable sources.
MoD can have the money to build up our forces in response to Russia threat only if they reform procurement, and cut some of the pointless stuff that doesn't contribute to our defence. No need for aircraft carrier sitting ducks for instance. Frankly I'm not sure there's any need to procure anything that takes 30 years to make for the military... New tech makes things obsolete pretty fast these days...
I assume those of you saying a Cold War scenario doesn’t require aircraft carriers haven’t ever looked at the old Cold War defence plans? They were pivotal to it. Absent the U.S. we probably need another carrier, and for all three to have full air groups. So do the French.
Not a military expert but my understanding is they are too easy to sink/incapacitate with missiles...
But that doesn't mean they're obsolute. You use what you have until something better comes along. What would you replace a carrier with? Do you have drones that can strike tens of thousands of miles away?
That’s a movie. In which the strike against the carrier only works because the American carrier group thinks they are at peace. Plus lets a Russian bomber group get closer than they would ever allow.
In real life, the incoming bombers would be intercepted several hundred miles from the carrier. Then they and their missiles would face layers of missile defences.
The American carrier groups were designed to survive over a hundred Backfire bombers coming in and launching multiple anti ship missiles during the Cold War.
The Russians don’t have even a fraction of that capability left.
I know you're not Elon Musk, but why on earth does slaughtering hundreds of thousands of your countrymen in a pointless invasion of another country count as "competent leadership" ?
How do you know he's not Elon Musk? The constant criticism of Elon would be the perfect cover.
I wouldn't want to be Musk. Not ever.
I have a good life. Besides a few rather sh*tty things happening, I've had a good life. (touches wood). We have a house with no mortgage, money in the bank and in investments, and an income that allows one of us not to work. We're all healthy and happy. Steve Jobs' riches didn't save him from an early grave.
What would I gain from being richer than Crassus? I'm happy; and I'm pretty sure Musk isn't happy. I've also achieved stuff he hasn't.
In fact, Musk strikes me as being a deeply unhappy person.
There's the elephant in the room. One of you can afford not to work. Until recently, all families had that.
Can we junk the term “Usonian” please? Sorry, but it makes the users look retarded.
American or U.S. is fine.
IMO no . Sorry.
America is a continent not a country, so I think we need something to refer to the country that is accurate. I'm happy with US or USA for the country's noun, but I don't think US is a suitable adjective most of the time.
"Usonian" has been around since it was coined by Frank Lloyd-Wright in 1937. There is earlier history back to 1800, but I think FLW was the one who counts.
So the USA and Russia are essentially negotiating the spoils of war . Ukraine is in an impossible position as Trump will say refuse to accept the deal and we pull all further support .
We should all be under no illusions. The USA is actively working against the UK and the EU and are willing to sell out Ukraine .
Why is being willing to sell out Ukraine actively working against UK interests? I can't see what one foreign country's attitude to two other foreign countries has to do woth UK interests at all personally. If we're really talking about UK interests, crudely they are best served by a quick end to the fighting, with the chance to save on military aid, and decrease in the cost of energy.
Because if Putin gets a win in Ukraine, which a 'peace deal' that sells out Ukraine will be, it shows Putin that aggression works and that he can pretty much do what he wants in Eastern Europe as far as the US is concerned.
That's obviously against British interests as a Europe being menaced by Putin is bad for us, and will cost us much more in defence spending if we're to be able to protect ourselves. It's shortsighted stupidity to believe giving a dictator everything he wants to buy off peace works. Once you have paid him the Danegeld you never get rid of the Dane.
I know you're not Elon Musk, but why on earth does slaughtering hundreds of thousands of your countrymen in a pointless invasion of another country count as "competent leadership" ?
How do you know he's not Elon Musk? The constant criticism of Elon would be the perfect cover.
I wouldn't want to be Musk. Not ever.
I have a good life. Besides a few rather sh*tty things happening, I've had a good life. (touches wood). We have a house with no mortgage, money in the bank and in investments, and an income that allows one of us not to work. We're all healthy and happy. Steve Jobs' riches didn't save him from an early grave.
What would I gain from being richer than Crassus? I'm happy; and I'm pretty sure Musk isn't happy. I've also achieved stuff he hasn't.
In fact, Musk strikes me as being a deeply unhappy person.
There's the elephant in the room. One of you can afford not to work. Until recently, all families had that.
There is that. But we're a bit tight with money, which always helps. Which is why I'm spending the week doing some decorating rather than getting people in to do it.
I see the Americans have agreed to normalise relations with Russia, including discussions about trade barriers.
So that’s 5-0 to Russia.
So what happens to the war crimes allegations and sanctions ?
What are they?
Without going in to too much detail ...
Remember Bucha? The Theatre bombing in Mariupol with hundreds of civilians sheltering in the basement? Plus all those bombings of civilians, attacks on hospitals, murders of POWs after they had surrendered, torture of POWs, stealing of 20k-30k or more of Ukrainian children to be brought up as Russians, extensive use of chemical weapons (including tear gas type things that meet the definition), sexual crimes against males and females.
I saw an early video of a Ukrainian soldier being castrated on the spot after capture, but I don't like watching them. That was something the Japanese used to do in WW2 to POWs; that was why X-Craft operations were pulled.
More recently the Russians have been sending drones out to hunt down civilians in Kherson and elsewhere.
Ukraine the Latest cover all these angles from time to time, including interviewing those in the units doing investigations and evidence gathering for when it comes to prosecution afterwards.
There's no end it. And some very dedicated, very focused, NGOs, gathering evidence to give to the ICC. Many videos on Youtube or NPR etc documentaries. Links:
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
The French ones anyway. Ours are not truly independent of the USA.
Yes they are. Don’t spread this.
I suspect you mean in the long term, refurbing the missiles sense, which is somewhat correct but has limited meaning, because we could take other choices before it was a major issue.
What evidence do you have to back up your viewpoint?
Google it. This is all publicly available. Just stick to reputable sources.
So basically none - given that Google is full of AI generated bulltulip nowadays.
We have for so many years blithely assumed that the Americans would be there. We have become lazy, and happy to run down our armed forces, because there wasn't going to be a need for a conventional army, navy and air force - it was all about terrorism. And yet here we are. What we do have is the excellent nucleus of larger forces, if we have the desire and money to do it, we can increase the size of the army, we can buy planes and drones. But as always voters are happy for tax raises on other people.
I don't disagree. But we do need to assess the probability of Russia seeking territorial conquest outside Ukraine, and in particular against NATO members. A lot of the comments on this thread seem to put that probability very high, whereas the difficulty that Russia has experienced in Ukraine suggests that directly taking on a NATO country is really unlikely. We might wish to intervene in a different conflict, so the answer may not be nothing even if we don't expect a direct threat to a NATO member, but the assessment needs to be made.
Russia will be emboldened by the outcome whatever settlement is made over Ukraine. It seems likely to give it at least a large fraction of what it wants - and Ukraine is a vastly larger and stronger opponent than any of the Baltic States, which are the next obvious targets. Why would Putin or his doubtless even more revolting successors do anything but keep picking off chunks of territory, unless they are either beaten in battle or convinced that they would lose if they tried. Arming Europe to the teeth is how the latter is achieved and the former averted.
The Russians can't be trusted and should be viewed as enemies regardless of what happens next over Ukraine. "They might not do anything so everything's peachy" is not the way to deal with enemies.
Georgia is a more obvious next target.
If Russia gets what it wants in a deal with Trump, then a limited form of conflict probing the frontline NATO states, of the sort it engaged in against Ukraine between the annexation of Crimea and the outright invasion of 2022, is more likely.
Has everyone asking "What is Russia's next target?" examined their assumptions? Did they ask the same question in 1999 during the war in Chechnya?
MoD can have the money to build up our forces in response to Russia threat only if they reform procurement, and cut some of the pointless stuff that doesn't contribute to our defence. No need for aircraft carrier sitting ducks for instance. Frankly I'm not sure there's any need to procure anything that takes 30 years to make for the military... New tech makes things obsolete pretty fast these days...
I assume those of you saying a Cold War scenario doesn’t require aircraft carriers haven’t ever looked at the old Cold War defence plans? They were pivotal to it. Absent the U.S. we probably need another carrier, and for all three to have full air groups. So do the French.
Not a military expert but my understanding is they are too easy to sink/incapacitate with missiles...
But that doesn't mean they're obsolute. You use what you have until something better comes along. What would you replace a carrier with? Do you have drones that can strike tens of thousands of miles away?
Also: big ocean. Small carrier. You’d use them differently vs. Russia.
This youtube by Peter Zeihan explains why carriers are much less vulnerable to drones etc than you may think. They really are not obsolete. Worth a look.
MoD can have the money to build up our forces in response to Russia threat only if they reform procurement, and cut some of the pointless stuff that doesn't contribute to our defence. No need for aircraft carrier sitting ducks for instance. Frankly I'm not sure there's any need to procure anything that takes 30 years to make for the military... New tech makes things obsolete pretty fast these days...
I assume those of you saying a Cold War scenario doesn’t require aircraft carriers haven’t ever looked at the old Cold War defence plans? They were pivotal to it. Absent the U.S. we probably need another carrier, and for all three to have full air groups. So do the French.
Not a military expert but my understanding is they are too easy to sink/incapacitate with missiles...
But that doesn't mean they're obsolute. You use what you have until something better comes along. What would you replace a carrier with? Do you have drones that can strike tens of thousands of miles away?
Also: big ocean. Small carrier. You’d use them differently vs. Russia.
This youtube by Peter Zeihan explains why carriers are much less vulnerable to drones etc than you may think. They really are not obsolete. Worth a look.
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
The French ones anyway. Ours are not truly independent of the USA.
Yes they are. Don’t spread this.
I suspect you mean in the long term, refurbing the missiles sense, which is somewhat correct but has limited meaning, because we could take other choices before it was a major issue.
What evidence do you have to back up your viewpoint?
Google it. This is all publicly available. Just stick to reputable sources.
So basically none - given that Google is full of AI generated bulltulip nowadays.
Erm, no, loads. Parliamentary questions and answers, hundreds of books, multiple magazine and journal articles. To anyone who knows the subject my comment might as well have said “the sun will rise tomorrow” or “water is wet”.
We have for so many years blithely assumed that the Americans would be there. We have become lazy, and happy to run down our armed forces, because there wasn't going to be a need for a conventional army, navy and air force - it was all about terrorism. And yet here we are. What we do have is the excellent nucleus of larger forces, if we have the desire and money to do it, we can increase the size of the army, we can buy planes and drones. But as always voters are happy for tax raises on other people.
I don't disagree. But we do need to assess the probability of Russia seeking territorial conquest outside Ukraine, and in particular against NATO members. A lot of the comments on this thread seem to put that probability very high, whereas the difficulty that Russia has experienced in Ukraine suggests that directly taking on a NATO country is really unlikely. We might wish to intervene in a different conflict, so the answer may not be nothing even if we don't expect a direct threat to a NATO member, but the assessment needs to be made.
Russia will be emboldened by the outcome whatever settlement is made over Ukraine. It seems likely to give it at least a large fraction of what it wants - and Ukraine is a vastly larger and stronger opponent than any of the Baltic States, which are the next obvious targets. Why would Putin or his doubtless even more revolting successors do anything but keep picking off chunks of territory, unless they are either beaten in battle or convinced that they would lose if they tried. Arming Europe to the teeth is how the latter is achieved and the former averted.
The Russians can't be trusted and should be viewed as enemies regardless of what happens next over Ukraine. "They might not do anything so everything's peachy" is not the way to deal with enemies.
Georgia is a more obvious next target.
If Russia gets what it wants in a deal with Trump, then a limited form of conflict probing the frontline NATO states, of the sort it engaged in against Ukraine between the annexation of Crimea and the outright invasion of 2022, is more likely.
I think their next target will be Transnistria. Treat Modova in the same way they treated Ukraine
Start from the basis that we will almost double defence spending - from approx £54 billion this year to £100 billion as soon as possible.
So we are looking for an extra £46 billion a year
It has been estimated that getting rid of the triple lock will save £10 billion a year. It was estimated by a cross party group in 2018 that increasing NI by 1p in the pound would raise £12 billion a year. It has also been estimated that making penioners pay NI when they work would raise an additional £1.5 billion a year
Yes these are estimates but they are from reliable sources inside and outside Government not just numbers plucked out of the air.
So straight away we are just over half way to the requireed £46 billion additinal without even having to think too hard about it.
And these are annual savings, not one offs. Which makes them more sustainable.
I am sure there are others on here who can suggest similar savings/increases to bridge that gap.
There's no point at all in carbon capture schemes any more, so that's another few bob.
I was ignoring things like CCS and HS2 as they are time limited one off expenses. Though I agree both are pointless.
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
The French ones anyway. Ours are not truly independent of the USA.
Yes they are. Don’t spread this.
I suspect you mean in the long term, refurbing the missiles sense, which is somewhat correct but has limited meaning, because we could take other choices before it was a major issue.
What evidence do you have to back up your viewpoint?
Google it. This is all publicly available. Just stick to reputable sources.
So basically none - given that Google is full of AI generated bulltulip nowadays.
Erm, no, loads. Parliamentary questions and answers, hundreds of books, multiple magazine and journal articles. To anyone who knows the subject my comment might as well have said “the sun will rise tomorrow” or “water is wet”.
Given how fast and loss Trump plays with the rule of law - I doubt pre January 2025 answers are worth much..
We have for so many years blithely assumed that the Americans would be there. We have become lazy, and happy to run down our armed forces, because there wasn't going to be a need for a conventional army, navy and air force - it was all about terrorism. And yet here we are. What we do have is the excellent nucleus of larger forces, if we have the desire and money to do it, we can increase the size of the army, we can buy planes and drones. But as always voters are happy for tax raises on other people.
I don't disagree. But we do need to assess the probability of Russia seeking territorial conquest outside Ukraine, and in particular against NATO members. A lot of the comments on this thread seem to put that probability very high, whereas the difficulty that Russia has experienced in Ukraine suggests that directly taking on a NATO country is really unlikely. We might wish to intervene in a different conflict, so the answer may not be nothing even if we don't expect a direct threat to a NATO member, but the assessment needs to be made.
Russia will be emboldened by the outcome whatever settlement is made over Ukraine. It seems likely to give it at least a large fraction of what it wants - and Ukraine is a vastly larger and stronger opponent than any of the Baltic States, which are the next obvious targets. Why would Putin or his doubtless even more revolting successors do anything but keep picking off chunks of territory, unless they are either beaten in battle or convinced that they would lose if they tried. Arming Europe to the teeth is how the latter is achieved and the former averted.
The Russians can't be trusted and should be viewed as enemies regardless of what happens next over Ukraine. "They might not do anything so everything's peachy" is not the way to deal with enemies.
Georgia is a more obvious next target.
If Russia gets what it wants in a deal with Trump, then a limited form of conflict probing the frontline NATO states, of the sort it engaged in against Ukraine between the annexation of Crimea and the outright invasion of 2022, is more likely.
I think their next target will be Transnistria. Treat Modova in the same way they treated Ukraine
I agree about Transnistria. Then they will want a land corridor through Ukraine to Transnistria, which coincidentally will give them the Black Sea coast. And after that, a land route to Kaliningrad.
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
The French ones anyway. Ours are not truly independent of the USA.
Yes they are. Don’t spread this.
I suspect you mean in the long term, refurbing the missiles sense, which is somewhat correct but has limited meaning, because we could take other choices before it was a major issue.
What evidence do you have to back up your viewpoint?
Google it. This is all publicly available. Just stick to reputable sources.
So basically none - given that Google is full of AI generated bulltulip nowadays.
Erm, no, loads. Parliamentary questions and answers, hundreds of books, multiple magazine and journal articles. To anyone who knows the subject my comment might as well have said “the sun will rise tomorrow” or “water is wet”.
Given how fast and loss Trump plays with the rule of law - I doubt pre January 2025 answers are worth much..
So the USA and Russia are essentially negotiating the spoils of war . Ukraine is in an impossible position as Trump will say refuse to accept the deal and we pull all further support .
We should all be under no illusions. The USA is actively working against the UK and the EU and are willing to sell out Ukraine .
Why is being willing to sell out Ukraine actively working against UK interests? I can't see what one foreign country's attitude to two other foreign countries has to do woth UK interests at all personally. If we're really talking about UK interests, crudely they are best served by a quick end to the fighting, with the chance to save on military aid, and decrease in the cost of energy.
1938 should tell you why a quarrel in a faraway country, between people of whom we know nothing; soon becomes our interest.
Russia is our enemy. Their rhetoric alone tells you that. Why do you want our enemy to have more territory, resources and power?
The assumption that there's no interests beyond short term interests seems to drive the Corbynite/Faragite view that a quick end to fighting is always best, and that it really cannot have anything to do with anyone else.
I know you're not Elon Musk, but why on earth does slaughtering hundreds of thousands of your countrymen in a pointless invasion of another country count as "competent leadership" ?
How do you know he's not Elon Musk? The constant criticism of Elon would be the perfect cover.
I wouldn't want to be Musk. Not ever.
I have a good life. Besides a few rather sh*tty things happening, I've had a good life. (touches wood). We have a house with no mortgage, money in the bank and in investments, and an income that allows one of us not to work. We're all healthy and happy. Steve Jobs' riches didn't save him from an early grave.
What would I gain from being richer than Crassus? I'm happy; and I'm pretty sure Musk isn't happy. I've also achieved stuff he hasn't.
In fact, Musk strikes me as being a deeply unhappy person.
There's the elephant in the room. One of you can afford not to work. Until recently, all families had that.
If you count "recently" as the 1960s.
The 1960s are within living memory. It is more recent that one income was not enough to sustain a family – possibly a millennial thing. The point, however is that needing two salaries has become the new normal. Where does that leave the unattached or even low-paid couples? What use is it to the economy if so much money is absorbed by housing costs, whether rented or bought and paying off massive loans. We have become a rentier economy and are slowly selling off our remaining national assets.
The problem is the assumption of American support underpins European security. Even if we replace it with all the extra investment, it's a ten year project at best. We probably don't have a choice. We will have to spend a lot more on defence as a continent while depending on what's left of American goodwill in the meantime. It's a desperate situation to be in.
We don't have a choice.
And look on the bright side: historically, we would have mostly bought American kit. Now, that doesn't look like such a great idea, and I suspect the domestic defence industry is going to get a boost.
The USA is now dangerous to its allies, and harmless to its enemies.
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
The French ones anyway. Ours are not truly independent of the USA.
Yes they are. Don’t spread this.
I suspect you mean in the long term, refurbing the missiles sense, which is somewhat correct but has limited meaning, because we could take other choices before it was a major issue.
What evidence do you have to back up your viewpoint?
Google it. This is all publicly available. Just stick to reputable sources.
So basically none - given that Google is full of AI generated bulltulip nowadays.
Erm, no, loads. Parliamentary questions and answers, hundreds of books, multiple magazine and journal articles. To anyone who knows the subject my comment might as well have said “the sun will rise tomorrow” or “water is wet”.
Given how fast and loss Trump plays with the rule of law - I doubt pre January 2025 answers are worth much..
He can’t change the laws of physics….
Does he know that? Would the GOP tell him otherwise if he does not?
Can we junk the term “Usonian” please? Sorry, but it makes the users look retarded.
American or U.S. is fine.
IMO no . Sorry.
America is a continent not a country, so I think we need something to refer to the country that is accurate. I'm happy with US or USA for the country's noun, but I don't think US is a suitable adjective most of the time.
"Usonian" has been around since it was coined by Frank Lloyd-Wright in 1937. There is earlier history back to 1800, but I think FLW was the one who counts.
You can't expect linguistic usage to be uniform for all country names. Most who say "the Ukraine", "the Lebanon", or "the Argentine" do not meant to be insulting.
"America" for the USA is plainly wrong.
"Briton" may be analogous to the noun "German" but it's a usage I detest. Tabloid through and through.
But "US policy" and "the US government" are fine. The difficulty is in finding what to say for the USA that's analogous to "the British enjoy X" or "Frenchmen detest Y". That's when a case for "Usonian" as a noun could be made....but nah....it just sounds too stupid, sorry. Say "US citizens" or "US residents" according to need. Or recast to "in the US, people...." You can't have the same rules for Britain, USA, UAE, DR Congo, etc.
We have for so many years blithely assumed that the Americans would be there. We have become lazy, and happy to run down our armed forces, because there wasn't going to be a need for a conventional army, navy and air force - it was all about terrorism. And yet here we are. What we do have is the excellent nucleus of larger forces, if we have the desire and money to do it, we can increase the size of the army, we can buy planes and drones. But as always voters are happy for tax raises on other people.
I don't disagree. But we do need to assess the probability of Russia seeking territorial conquest outside Ukraine, and in particular against NATO members. A lot of the comments on this thread seem to put that probability very high, whereas the difficulty that Russia has experienced in Ukraine suggests that directly taking on a NATO country is really unlikely. We might wish to intervene in a different conflict, so the answer may not be nothing even if we don't expect a direct threat to a NATO member, but the assessment needs to be made.
Russia will be emboldened by the outcome whatever settlement is made over Ukraine. It seems likely to give it at least a large fraction of what it wants - and Ukraine is a vastly larger and stronger opponent than any of the Baltic States, which are the next obvious targets. Why would Putin or his doubtless even more revolting successors do anything but keep picking off chunks of territory, unless they are either beaten in battle or convinced that they would lose if they tried. Arming Europe to the teeth is how the latter is achieved and the former averted.
The Russians can't be trusted and should be viewed as enemies regardless of what happens next over Ukraine. "They might not do anything so everything's peachy" is not the way to deal with enemies.
Georgia is a more obvious next target.
If Russia gets what it wants in a deal with Trump, then a limited form of conflict probing the frontline NATO states, of the sort it engaged in against Ukraine between the annexation of Crimea and the outright invasion of 2022, is more likely.
I think their next target will be Transnistria. Treat Modova in the same way they treated Ukraine
It seems unlikely to me. That part of the world is a mess and may very well crumble into Putin land. Poland has to be his main target. Which is a rather terrifying idea.
Comments
Indeed I wish all mothers could stay at home and bring up their children but society has moved on and not for the better
We might need quite a few of those.
Zelensky: it seems like Russia and the U.S. are preparing an ultimatum to Ukraine, talking about Ukraine without Ukraine. We didn’t accept ultimatums in 2022, when the situation was much more serious and nobody was helping us, and I have no intention of accepting any ultimatums now.
https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1891877853039333452
That would help stake out a distinctive European position from the Usonian imperialist one, make Russia be aware that they will not get away with it, and also push back hard at the Trump regime's attempts to undermine international law *.
* Remember that Trump issued an Executive Order attacking the ICC, and targeting the individuals who work there with the sort of personal sanctions he is imo likely to remove from Russians. He has also removed / reduced or closed down corruption hunting and crime fighting organisation, including approximate USA versions of Trading Standards and the FCA / FSCS.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/
Even if there are now fewer working nuclear weapons in Europe.
But I think he's wrong in his analysis.
Rubio signals sanctions on Russia to be lifted after talks with Lavrov et al: “There are sanctions that were imposed as a result of this conflict,” Rubio said. “In order to bring an end to any conflict, there has to be concessions made by all sides.”
My view is that a lot more countries need to get nuclear weapons. The US will not provide cover to any allies who face nuclear threats.
NATO’s nuclear deterrent is now the 515 British. and French warheads.
European defence needs to based on the UK-led JEF, bringing in France as co-lead.
The EU is a non-sequitur in this matter.
Things are that serious.
Sorry, but it makes the users look retarded.
American or U.S. is fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGzJaTH6lHU
As I keep saying to the point of tedium: the Russians are brutal realists, using language as tools.
Rather, Britain needs to transition to operational nuclear independence, and both Britain and France need to commit to increasing stockpiles.
If we are defending against a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe, I think other things will be needed a lot more. If proper military experts say what we need is aircraft carriers then fine, but I'm very suspicious of people who want big ships for national prestige which certainly seems a motivation.
Now it’s a massive issue
Btw, those Israelis thinking MAGA is good news for Israel couldn't be more wrong. If the US can abandon its European allies, threaten Canada, and embrace Putin, it can sure as hell abandon Israel.
We should all be under no illusions. The USA is actively working against the UK and the EU and are willing to sell out Ukraine .
It's a capitulation. They are treating Ukraine as the aggressor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhj8ITvp-pw
But that doesn't mean they're obsolute. You use what you have until something better comes along. What would you replace a carrier with? Do you have drones that can strike tens of thousands of miles away?
Remember Bucha? The Theatre bombing in Mariupol with hundreds of civilians sheltering in the basement? Plus all those bombings of civilians, attacks on hospitals, murders of POWs after they had surrendered, torture of POWs, stealing of 20k-30k or more of Ukrainian children to be brought up as Russians, extensive use of chemical weapons (including tear gas type things that meet the definition), sexual crimes against males and females.
I saw an early video of a Ukrainian soldier being castrated on the spot after capture, but I don't like watching them. That was something the Japanese used to do in WW2 to POWs; that was why X-Craft operations were pulled.
More recently the Russians have been sending drones out to hunt down civilians in Kherson and elsewhere.
Ukraine the Latest cover all these angles from time to time, including interviewing those in the units doing investigations and evidence gathering for when it comes to prosecution afterwards.
There's no end it. And some very dedicated, very focused, NGOs, gathering evidence to give to the ICC. Many videos on Youtube or NPR etc documentaries. Links:
Kyiv Independent videos:
https://kyivindependent.com/war-crimes/
Drones hunting down civilians:
https://ukraine.ohchr.org/en/In-Ukraine-Short-Range-Drones-Become-Most-Dangerous-Weapon-for-Civilians-UN-Human-Rights-Monitors-Say
Documentary about collecting War Crimes evidence:
https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/111749-001-A/re-war-crimes/
Wikipedia Summary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
HTH
(If you are talking about being a shit to complete strangers; your post above - and others to me - are classic examples.)
The UK was favoured deputy in Europe and in NATO.
Israel in the Middle East.
Japan in East Asia.
Australia in South Asia.
It’s no longer really obvious what US strategy is.
He quite literally HATES Biden and Obama.
And so, of course, does Putin. Biden humiliated him when he visited Kyiv, as did Obama when he publicly dismissed Russia as a second class regional power.
And then there's Zelenskyy, who refused Trump's attempts to embroil Ukraine in Trump's witch-hunt against Biden.
And as for the whiny Europeans...
The Trump - Putin relationship? Well, they are fellow capos. Trump took Putin's praise as that due owing from one big man to another.
It's a useful lens.
Between now and 2029 Starmer has the opportunity and possibility of being showing himself to be a great European leader in hard times, and the UK to be part of a renewed western enterprise. If this is so and he succeeds he goes in the history books anyway. If this is so and he fails, then none of today's polling opinions will matter a jot.
As a member of the 1954 cohort, current times are like the death of HM QE II multiplied by 100. Stuff that has been background and backbone of your entire seventy years as a UK citizen have gone; the extent to which in unexpressed ways we are looking to Labour, Starmer and a sense of national unity to lead us in new times is, I think, only slowly dawning.
Russia is our enemy. Their rhetoric alone tells you that. Why do you want our enemy to have more territory, resources and power?
They no longer exist. Big orange oaf has decreed.
I wonder if sporting sanctions may be the flashpoint?
I suspect you mean in the long term, refurbing the missiles sense, which is somewhat correct but has limited meaning, because we could take other choices before it was a major issue.
Moscow is 2,000 miles.
But if carriers are sitting ducks, we are better off scrapping them and investing in something else.
There are so many echoes of the 1930s these days - and not just in foreign policy. It's really quite frightening.
America is a continent not a country, so I think we need something to refer to the country that is accurate. I'm happy with US or USA for the country's noun, but I don't think US is a suitable adjective most of the time.
"Usonian" has been around since it was coined by Frank Lloyd-Wright in 1937. There is earlier history back to 1800, but I think FLW was the one who counts.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=usonian&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3
In real life, the incoming bombers would be intercepted several hundred miles from the carrier. Then they and their missiles would face layers of missile defences.
The American carrier groups were designed to survive over a hundred Backfire bombers coming in and launching multiple anti ship missiles during the Cold War.
The Russians don’t have even a fraction of that capability left.
That's obviously against British interests as a Europe being menaced by Putin is bad for us, and will cost us much more in defence spending if we're to be able to protect ourselves. It's shortsighted stupidity to believe giving a dictator everything he wants to buy off peace works. Once you have paid him the Danegeld you never get rid of the Dane.
I don't mind putting something brief together as it's a hidden aspect; someone might get something from my comment.
I might even post it somewhere else.
Did they ask the same question in 1999 during the war in Chechnya?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi8vgD7FUEc
The US is no longer an ally . We may as well just throw our lot in with China , another morally bankrupt administration!
"America" for the USA is plainly wrong.
"Briton" may be analogous to the noun "German" but it's a usage I detest. Tabloid through and through.
But "US policy" and "the US government" are fine. The difficulty is in finding what to say for the USA that's analogous to "the British enjoy X" or "Frenchmen detest Y". That's when a case for "Usonian" as a noun could be made....but nah....it just sounds too stupid, sorry. Say "US citizens" or "US residents" according to need. Or recast to "in the US, people...." You can't have the same rules for Britain, USA, UAE, DR Congo, etc.