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..
The point of an independent military force is to underpin national sovereignty and the ability to support the power of a nation-state. But in contrast to the other major nuclear powers, the United Kingdom has no independence of procurement and great difficulty even in the short-term in using the system it has procured from the United States.
I’ve no idea how I feel about the USA at the moment. I’d always looked to it with respect - but what they appear to be doing to Ukraine (and Europe) for that matter will be a stain on their standing for decades.
Not that they care - they think they don’t need anyone else.
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
And Moldova is possibly the most unknown country in Europe from a newspaper perspective, and small to boot, so who would mind?
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.
But Putin has always favoured political interference followed by salami-slicing. That's been the way he operates.
I do worry about the fact he's getting older, and may want to set his legacy set before he dies. One factor that I've seen alleged caused Hitler to go early...
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.
If More Europe is the quid pro quo you will lose my side of the argument.
Don't couple your pet political projects to it, or you'll lose.
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.
He's just sensing an opportunity to push for his preferred agenda.
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Used to say some interesting things. But his claim to be 'politically nonbinary' went a long time ago but he laughably would not admit it. Got a bit too comfortable with online praise, drifted, and now seems to be revealing his inner self?
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?
It is not an assumption. Putin himself has said it was a mistake for the Soviet Union to give up its satellites. He wants Central Europe back under Russian hegemony.
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.
But Putin has always favoured political interference followed by salami-slicing. That's been the way he operates.
I do worry about the fact he's getting older, and may want to set his legacy set before he dies. One factor that I've seen alleged caused Hitler to go early...
Hoepfully he's satisfied with the wins he has (and wins they are), bought with a few hundred thousand lives.
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?
It is not an assumption. Putin himself has said it was a mistake for the Soviet Union to give up its satellites. He wants Central Europe back under Russian hegemony.
I find to surprising that people who believe the "I started the war because of NATO's eastwards expansion" (even when he has denied that himself) choose to ignore all his rhetoric about Russia's influence expanding into eastern Europe.
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.
Immediate gratification only.
Yup. See also Corbynism (as you pointed out- thanks for that), the Cameron approach to austerity, the family silver (selling of), aspect of Thatcherism, PFI, sod-the-future environmental destruction and Brexit.
It used to be said that the defining feature of the British middle class was that they rather enjoyed delayed gratification. The nobs didn't need it and the plebs could barely afford to live day-to-day. However ghastly you found Margot Ledbetter, or Sue in Abigail's Party, it is the attitude that made Britain great.
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?
It is not an assumption. Putin himself has said it was a mistake for the Soviet Union to give up its satellites. He wants Central Europe back under Russian hegemony.
And a lot of people still believe in those areas naturally being part of its 'sphere of influence', sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, by suggesting he is right to have been upset that those areas turned away from Russia through their own choices (how dare they?!) and this justifies his own choices. Still see it with the 'NATO expansion' excuse.
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.
Hypersonic missiles are the biggest threat to carrier groups IMO. And as Russia has shown, they're expensive and difficult to make and field.
And both US Aegis ships and the Darings have demonstrated the ability to shoot down anything less than a full ICBM. And they would have a fair chance of that if close enough to the target.
And the AIM-174 means that (some of) the capability is now airborne
Because of the physics of missile defence, it is actually much easier to hit a missile coming towards you.
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?
It is not an assumption. Putin himself has said it was a mistake for the Soviet Union to give up its satellites. He wants Central Europe back under Russian hegemony.
I find to surprising that people who believe the "I started the war because of NATO's eastwards expansion" (even when he has denied that himself) choose to ignore all his rhetoric about Russia's influence expanding into eastern Europe.
Even though it is a pretext, and an obvious one, a lot of people take it more seriously than he himself probably does.
Worth bearing in mind that even if we "tool up" we'll still be weaker than we were in 1939.
Back then we could rely on Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and India to row in behind us - which must have tripled or quadrupled our firepower.
No longer the case. It really was the Empire that made Britain a force to be reckoned with.
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.
Russian forces would get their clocks cleaned with any attempt on Poland. Moldova/Transnistria is a softer target. Like the England cricket team Putin prefers a flatter wicket.
I don't often defend Starmer on here but he was absolutely right about Parliament being the place where laws are made today.
I don't like some of the things our politicians have said when they attack judges specifically, enemies of the people stuff, but the LCJ's intervention seems to have been wildly disproportionate to what was said and not really the appropriate trigger for an intervention.
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
I must admit, I didn't put "LibDem supporters most keen on increased defense spending, Reform voters least keen." on my polling forecasts for this year
I must admit, I didn't put "LibDem supporters most keen on increased defense spending, Reform voters least keen." on my polling forecasts for this year
Which is interesting as the Reform manifesto in 2024 advocated the biggest rise in defence spending.
A bit inexplicably to my thinking give Farage's Russia friendly views, but it was in there.
I've been calling for increased defence spending for... well, probably longer than I've been on here. As for alliances, anyone who shares our general values (so France, Germany, USA (before Trump) et al).
Where I differ from you is that I think tax increases are required to pay for it...
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h If Team Trump imagines there's going to be a peace deal here that Ukrainians accept, based on Russia permanently receiving 20% of Ukraine, & Ukraine will never fight again to recover its land, with everyone "moving on", then they are utterly delusional.
I must admit, I didn't put "LibDem supporters most keen on increased defense spending, Reform voters least keen." on my polling forecasts for this year
My sense is that Reform may follow Trump down the rabbit hole.
If they do, you can forget any support from me for a Tory-Reform deal.
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.
Not the Baltic states? Unlike Poland they have ethnic Russian / actual Russian citizens that Putin can stir up.
I must admit, I didn't put "LibDem supporters most keen on increased defense spending, Reform voters least keen." on my polling forecasts for this year
Which is interesting as the Reform manifesto in 2024 advocated the biggest rise in defence spending.
A bit inexplicably to my thinking give Farage's Russia friendly views, but it was in there.
The Reform manifesto, along with the Green's, was economic nonsense. I rather wonder that they didn't promise more.
I've been calling for increased defence spending for... well, probably longer than I've been on here. As for alliances, anyone who shares our general values (so France, Germany, USA (before Trump) et al).
Where I differ from you is that I think tax increases are required to pay for it...
I haven't said that tax increases aren't required. In fact, I've speculated as to how and where they could fall.
Where I differ (slightly) is that I wouldn't be squeamish about welfare or health trimbacks.
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.
Not the Baltic states? Unlike Poland they have ethnic Russian / actual Russian citizens that Putin can stir up.
I must admit, I didn't put "LibDem supporters most keen on increased defense spending, Reform voters least keen." on my polling forecasts for this year
Which is interesting as the Reform manifesto in 2024 advocated the biggest rise in defence spending.
A bit inexplicably to my thinking give Farage's Russia friendly views, but it was in there.
The Reform manifesto, along with the Green's, was economic nonsense. I rather wonder that they didn't promise more.
Well sure, but I cannot tell economic sense from nonsense, so it's interesting more from a perspective of what they wanted to portray as their values. And apparently that was to appear tougher on defence, even though their rhetoric might suggest they would not care on that.
I've been calling for increased defence spending for... well, probably longer than I've been on here. As for alliances, anyone who shares our general values (so France, Germany, USA (before Trump) et al).
Where I differ from you is that I think tax increases are required to pay for it...
I haven't said that tax increases aren't required. In fact, I've speculated as to how and where they could fall.
Where I differ (slightly) is that I wouldn't be squeamish about welfare or health trimbacks.
Because at the moment you don't use the NHS and don't know anyone who is on long term sick welfare.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h If Team Trump imagines there's going to be a peace deal here that Ukrainians accept, based on Russia permanently receiving 20% of Ukraine, & Ukraine will never fight again to recover its land, with everyone "moving on", then they are utterly delusional.
I must admit, I didn't put "LibDem supporters most keen on increased defense spending, Reform voters least keen." on my polling forecasts for this year
My sense is that Reform may follow Trump down the rabbit hole.
If they do, you can forget any support from me for a Tory-Reform deal.
The remaining Tory vote is not very Trump-esque, if they want to replace the Tories they may not want or need to go after my centrist dad vote (and I have voted Tory at a GE before), but they don't need to go in that direction either surely.
I must admit, I didn't put "LibDem supporters most keen on increased defense spending, Reform voters least keen." on my polling forecasts for this year
My sense is that Reform may follow Trump down the rabbit hole.
If they do, you can forget any support from me for a Tory-Reform deal.
Well that suggests that you might have been considering such a thing. You're absolutely insane. Whatever your fate it shouldn't involve passing go and collecting £200.
I must admit, I didn't put "LibDem supporters most keen on increased defense spending, Reform voters least keen." on my polling forecasts for this year
Given that most Reform supporters get their news from Russian apologists / supporters - it's not really that surprising...
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h If Team Trump imagines there's going to be a peace deal here that Ukrainians accept, based on Russia permanently receiving 20% of Ukraine, & Ukraine will never fight again to recover its land, with everyone "moving on", then they are utterly delusional.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h If Team Trump imagines there's going to be a peace deal here that Ukrainians accept, based on Russia permanently receiving 20% of Ukraine, & Ukraine will never fight again to recover its land, with everyone "moving on", then they are utterly delusional.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h If Team Trump imagines there's going to be a peace deal here that Ukrainians accept, based on Russia permanently receiving 20% of Ukraine, & Ukraine will never fight again to recover its land, with everyone "moving on", then they are utterly delusional.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h If Team Trump imagines there's going to be a peace deal here that Ukrainians accept, based on Russia permanently receiving 20% of Ukraine, & Ukraine will never fight again to recover its land, with everyone "moving on", then they are utterly delusional.
If they reject a Trump 'deal' he might just arm the Russians instead!
I said that before the November election!
Ukraine has the misfortune to be in need of assistance, that is weak, and having been assisted by those Trump hates. Despising the weak and his enemies, I'd not be surprised if he instinctively dislikes them.
I've been calling for increased defence spending for... well, probably longer than I've been on here. As for alliances, anyone who shares our general values (so France, Germany, USA (before Trump) et al).
Where I differ from you is that I think tax increases are required to pay for it...
I haven't said that tax increases aren't required. In fact, I've speculated as to how and where they could fall.
Where I differ (slightly) is that I wouldn't be squeamish about welfare or health trimbacks.
Fair enough.
It's just that austerity has been tried for many years, and I'm unsure there's much more to be squeezed without causing real hardships for some people.
I must admit, I didn't put "LibDem supporters most keen on increased defense spending, Reform voters least keen." on my polling forecasts for this year
Given that most Reform supporters get their news from Russian apologists / supporters - it's not really that surprising...
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h If Team Trump imagines there's going to be a peace deal here that Ukrainians accept, based on Russia permanently receiving 20% of Ukraine, & Ukraine will never fight again to recover its land, with everyone "moving on", then they are utterly delusional.
If they reject a Trump 'deal' he might just arm the Russians instead!
At least then it would be completely obvious where the US stand...
Not already obvious?
I was thinking of those who are hard of thinking - such as Reform's leadership and voters. Hey at least Reform's leadership has the excuse that they have to keep their paymasters happy..
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
And Moldova is possibly the most unknown country in Europe from a newspaper perspective, and small to boot, so who would mind?
There's a Moldova Restaurant on Gants Hill Roundabout (A12, Ilford North)!
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h If Team Trump imagines there's going to be a peace deal here that Ukrainians accept, based on Russia permanently receiving 20% of Ukraine, & Ukraine will never fight again to recover its land, with everyone "moving on", then they are utterly delusional.
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.
Not the Baltic states? Unlike Poland they have ethnic Russian / actual Russian citizens that Putin can stir up.
If it's OK for the Baltics to be part of NATO, why not Ukraine?
I must admit, I didn't put "LibDem supporters most keen on increased defense spending, Reform voters least keen." on my polling forecasts for this year
My sense is that Reform may follow Trump down the rabbit hole.
If they do, you can forget any support from me for a Tory-Reform deal.
The thing that unites the two halves of the Reform coalition is that the status quo is a conspiracy against them.
The leadership want to use that as an excuse to cut taxes, the followership want to use it as an excuse to increase government spending on them.
Of course, none of them want to increase defence spending.
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
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.
Not the Baltic states? Unlike Poland they have ethnic Russian / actual Russian citizens that Putin can stir up.
If it's OK for the Baltics to be part of NATO, why not Ukraine?
As of a week ago NATO is effectively dead. We are now in a post NATO world.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
I think some European politicians are still in denial or just putting on a brave front .
The US is no longer an ally . We may as well just throw our lot in with China , another morally bankrupt administration!
Seriously, we should be allying with the big countries where English is widely spoken i.e. Nigeria and India.
Only 10% speak English as a first/home language (L1) in Nigeria, and only 0.02%(!) in India!
Sunil's Anglosphere consists of:
UK US Canada Aus NZ Ireland Singapore
There's no reason the Caribbean shouldn't be either, but they've been bought.
Well, I am still including the UK overseas territories, but most of the sovereign states there are in fact Creole-speaking at L1-level, albeit with English as the lexifying language of said Creoles.
However, Dominica and St Lucia's L1 Creoles are FRENCH-based
Though at least the UK is meetings its NATO target of percentage of gdp spent on defence unlike some like Germany and France (though that might change if Merz is elected at the weekend)
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
Seems to have been a bit of a resurgence lately of people thinking race and nationality have to be the same. Not sure why, as it doesn't seem to be one of those popular yet not currently widely represented politically ideas (like supporting the death penalty).
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Putin can end the war IMMEDIATELY by pulling back to the 1991 border.
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
So at what point should they have surrendered to avoid the loss of the soldiers? Had they done so at the start that would have involved giving up the entire country, it's only by fighting that the present 'deal' would be less than that.
What is the point where resistance becomes unacceptable? The second someone invades? After a successful counterattack? An unsuccessful one? A period of stalemate?
I understand brutal, cold calculation and realpolitik. I don't understand a line of thought that essentially says countries should not defend themselves because they'll just lose eventually anyway, and that is the logic of what you are saying by saying since they couldn't win fighting on was wrong. You're blaming the defender for the deaths inflicted on them by the aggressor.
Have nations never managed to surprisingly resisted before?
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
Seems to have been a bit of a resurgence lately of people thinking race and nationality have to be the same. Not sure why, as it doesn't seem to be one of those popular yet not currently widely represented politically ideas (like supporting the death penalty).
Explicit racism as a mainstream political viewpoint was fairly ubiquitous in many countries until the recent decades. It could easily return. Indeed it is implicit when MAGA Republicans hark back to the 1950s.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 3h If Team Trump imagines there's going to be a peace deal here that Ukrainians accept, based on Russia permanently receiving 20% of Ukraine, & Ukraine will never fight again to recover its land, with everyone "moving on", then they are utterly delusional.
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
I don't often defend Starmer on here but he was absolutely right about Parliament being the place where laws are made today.
Maybe I’m completely wrong but I have a feeling he’s starting to grow into the role.
His first couple of months were terrible. He has righted the boat somewhat, but that's relative to a low base.
Events since 20 January give a number of national leaders a chance of a completely new and serious role. France, Germany, Poland, Canada, UK (even the EU??) right at the top of the list.
I think that no-one, including Trump, knows where all this is going, and it will contain surprises. Starmer certainly has a chance he could not have expected of being 'Leader of the nation', one of the 'Leaders of Europe' if we end up in serious engagement on a different side from the USA.
Trump's technique of so having ideas and 'plans' that he forces others to either sharpern up their own ideas or be losers could also be an opportunity.
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Russia can enforce the ceasefire no doubt, no one more neutral.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
So they should have just rolled over and accepted being invaded by Russia?
I remember someone lying on the floor of a Tunisian hotel that was being attacked by terrorists a few years ago. Maybe you should remember how that felt before you start suggesting people should just roll over and accept their fate.
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
I think it's great that the Jewish Moscow born Kisan is the final arbiter on who is British.
Why Jewish rather than Russian?
1. I mentioned Moscow born, so I think that goes without saying 2. Kisin specifically mentioned Sunak being Hindi, which - if I'm not mistaken - is a religion
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
I think it's great that the Jewish Moscow born Kisan is the final arbiter on who is British.
Why Jewish rather than Russian?
1. I mentioned Moscow born, so I think that goes without saying 2. Kisin specifically mentioned Sunak being Hindi, which - if I'm not mistaken - is a religion
Although I think Kisin's beef was about the skin colour.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
Probably because Zelensky is Jewish.
Unnecessary complication.
Selfishness (instead of spending on weapons of war, the money should go on causes I approve of) and short-term naivety (appeasement makes aggressors go away) is enough.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Do they should have just rolled over and accepted being invaded by Russia?
I remember someone lying on the floor of a Tunisian hotel that was being attacked by terrorists a few years ago. Maybe you should remember how that felt before you start suggesting people should just roll over and accept their fate.
Bringing that up is probably a bit over the line IMO, despite what is being suggested.
That being said, the acceptance of conquest is what is being suggested. Which would be one thing, but it is usually from that political wing either not acknowledged, or presented as the morally pure option, which I think is pretty horrendous.
There are 'realistic' scenarios that people may be disregarding out of a hope that the Russians would not come out ahead in this situation, but doing that doesn't require tacit or explicit support for simple conquest and morally equating defence with attack.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Putin can end the war IMMEDIATELY by pulling back to the 1991 border.
Oh Sunil you are such an idiot! Surely you would be better off blaming Corbyn.
I presume Israel could also pull back to the pre 1948 borders!
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
I think it's great that the Jewish Moscow born Kisan is the final arbiter on who is British.
Why Jewish rather than Russian?
1. I mentioned Moscow born, so I think that goes without saying 2. Kisin specifically mentioned Sunak being Hindi, which - if I'm not mistaken - is a religion
HINDU!
Hindi is a language, mutually intelligibubble with Urdu.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Putin can end the war IMMEDIATELY by pulling back to the 1991 border.
Oh Sunil you are such an idiot! Surely you would be better off blaming Corbyn.
I presume Israel could also pull back to the pre 1948 borders!
The 1948 borders would mean Israel annexing the West Bank and Gaza. Do you mean the 1967 borders?
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
Have you seen what happened in Bucha? Have you heard what Russia is doing in the occupied territories?
The desolation in Gaza is not very different from how the Russians captured Mariupol.
If Russia wins, there will not be any Ukrainians. Kids will be deported (as is already happening in the occupied territories), and the Ukrainian language and identity quashed.
You are an intelligent chap, so I do winder if your blindness is wilful.
The Russians are the bad guys in this. I know as a lifelong leftie that might seem odd to you, but it's the case. If you hate what Israel's doing, you should hate what Russia is doing. More so, as there is zero excuse in Russia's case.
And that's the issue you have. You rightly condemn one state's actions, but want another state, doing similar things, to win.
Would the Palestinians not be better off alive than dead under Israeli rule?
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
I think it's great that the Jewish Moscow born Kisan is the final arbiter on who is British.
Why Jewish rather than Russian?
1. I mentioned Moscow born, so I think that goes without saying 2. Kisin specifically mentioned Sunak being Hindi, which - if I'm not mistaken - is a religion
Although I think Kisin's beef was about the skin colour.
(I'll admit I've never heard of him.)
A few years ago he got some positive attention for some speeches against woke culture. Had a popular podcast. I've read his book 'An immigrant's love letter to the West', which was decent enough. Now he's a right wing troll.
I think the issue may be he used to be a comedian but has transitioned to being a full time commentator, and when people do that they tend to lose a little of integrity as they chase highs and don't have time to make measured interventions. See people like Goodwin, Petersen.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
If the Ukrainians wish to keep fighting for their country and their democracy and to avoid a brutal Russian occupation, then candidly, who are we to stop them?
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
Corbyn wanted us to give samples of the Salisbury poison to Russia. His actions at the time were heinous.
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
“He’s a brown Hindu, how can he be English?!” protests Konstantin Kisan while ‘debating’ Southampton born, Winchester educated, Rishi Sunak’s identity.
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
I think it's great that the Jewish Moscow born Kisan is the final arbiter on who is British.
Why Jewish rather than Russian?
1. I mentioned Moscow born, so I think that goes without saying 2. Kisin specifically mentioned Sunak being Hindi, which - if I'm not mistaken - is a religion
HINDU!
Hindi is a language, mutually intelligibubble with Urdu.
Not sure it really matters though does it?
Just people.
I'm rather proud to call myself certain things, but I don't think I can be bothered these days when anyone calls me something else.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
You just, in practice, support what Putin does. As does Jezza.
Comments
The point of an independent military
force is to underpin national
sovereignty and the ability to support
the power of a nation-state. But in
contrast to the other major nuclear
powers, the United Kingdom has no
independence of procurement and
great difficulty even in the short-term
in using the system it has procured
from the United States.
Also see what happens when you click the link to the USA confirmation on this page https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10086/
Not that they care - they think they don’t need anyone else.
I do worry about the fact he's getting older, and may want to set his legacy set before he dies. One factor that I've seen alleged caused Hitler to go early...
Don't couple your pet political projects to it, or you'll lose.
He's just sensing an opportunity to push for his preferred agenda.
It used to be said that the defining feature of the British middle class was that they rather enjoyed delayed gratification. The nobs didn't need it and the plebs could barely afford to live day-to-day. However ghastly you found Margot Ledbetter, or Sue in Abigail's Party, it is the attitude that made Britain great.
Its passing should be mourned.
And the AIM-174 means that (some of) the capability is now airborne
Because of the physics of missile defence, it is actually much easier to hit a missile coming towards you.
I wish we had more cerebral Liberals like him.
Back then we could rely on Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and India to row in behind us - which must have tripled or quadrupled our firepower.
No longer the case. It really was the Empire that made Britain a force to be reckoned with.
Not this Opus Dei shit of meekly thrashing ourselves over Reparations at China's behest.
Sunil's Anglosphere consists of:
UK
US
Canada
Aus
NZ
Ireland
Singapore
A bit inexplicably to my thinking give Farage's Russia friendly views, but it was in there.
Where I differ from you is that I think tax increases are required to pay for it...
@andrew_lilico
·
3h
If Team Trump imagines there's going to be a peace deal here that Ukrainians accept, based on Russia permanently receiving 20% of Ukraine, & Ukraine will never fight again to recover its land, with everyone "moving on", then they are utterly delusional.
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/1891866997563981862
If they do, you can forget any support from me for a Tory-Reform deal.
Unlike Poland they have ethnic Russian / actual Russian citizens that Putin can stir up.
Where I differ (slightly) is that I wouldn't be squeamish about welfare or health trimbacks.
It's just that austerity has been tried for many years, and I'm unsure there's much more to be squeezed without causing real hardships for some people.
Meanwhile in France
https://x.com/NotFarLeftAtAll/status/1891622910269284775
Well, for a start, race & nationality are not the same thing …
https://x.com/SangitaMyska/status/1891841930201530432
The leadership want to use that as an excuse to cut taxes, the followership want to use it as an excuse to increase government spending on them.
Of course, none of them want to increase defence spending.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
However, Dominica and St Lucia's L1 Creoles are FRENCH-based
Source Geman Chancellor
What is the point where resistance becomes unacceptable? The second someone invades? After a successful counterattack? An unsuccessful one? A period of stalemate?
I understand brutal, cold calculation and realpolitik. I don't understand a line of thought that essentially says countries should not defend themselves because they'll just lose eventually anyway, and that is the logic of what you are saying by saying since they couldn't win fighting on was wrong. You're blaming the defender for the deaths inflicted on them by the aggressor.
Have nations never managed to surprisingly resisted before?
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
I think that no-one, including Trump, knows where all this is going, and it will contain surprises. Starmer certainly has a chance he could not have expected of being 'Leader of the nation', one of the 'Leaders of Europe' if we end up in serious engagement on a different side from the USA.
Trump's technique of so having ideas and 'plans' that he forces others to either sharpern up their own ideas or be losers could also be an opportunity.
I've never seen what other people see in the Triggernometry podcast...
I remember someone lying on the floor of a Tunisian hotel that was being attacked by terrorists a few years ago. Maybe you should remember how that felt before you start suggesting people should just roll over and accept their fate.
2. Kisin specifically mentioned Sunak being Hindi, which - if I'm not mistaken - is a religion
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
(I'll admit I've never heard of him.)
Selfishness (instead of spending on weapons of war, the money should go on causes I approve of) and short-term naivety (appeasement makes aggressors go away) is enough.
That being said, the acceptance of conquest is what is being suggested. Which would be one thing, but it is usually from that political wing either not acknowledged, or presented as the morally pure option, which I think is pretty horrendous.
There are 'realistic' scenarios that people may be disregarding out of a hope that the Russians would not come out ahead in this situation, but doing that doesn't require tacit or explicit support for simple conquest and morally equating defence with attack.
I presume Israel could also pull back to the pre 1948 borders!
Hindi is a language, mutually intelligibubble with Urdu.
The desolation in Gaza is not very different from how the Russians captured Mariupol.
If Russia wins, there will not be any Ukrainians. Kids will be deported (as is already happening in the occupied territories), and the Ukrainian language and identity quashed.
You are an intelligent chap, so I do winder if your blindness is wilful.
The Russians are the bad guys in this. I know as a lifelong leftie that might seem odd to you, but it's the case. If you hate what Israel's doing, you should hate what Russia is doing. More so, as there is zero excuse in Russia's case.
And that's the issue you have. You rightly condemn one state's actions, but want another state, doing similar things, to win.
Would the Palestinians not be better off alive than dead under Israeli rule?
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
I think the issue may be he used to be a comedian but has transitioned to being a full time commentator, and when people do that they tend to lose a little of integrity as they chase highs and don't have time to make measured interventions. See people like Goodwin, Petersen.
Just people.
I'm rather proud to call myself certain things, but I don't think I can be bothered these days when anyone calls me something else.