I do think the PM needs to say something, tonight, on the record. A pool clip at least.
There's not much more he can say that he hasn't already said. The time for further speeches will be after the trip to the US. Trump is likely to try to humiliate him. How he reacts to that will matter hugely
The 'special relationship' is dead, NATO is dead, the 'west' is dead.
America is no longer an ally.
We need to react accordingly - and fast.
UK and Canada should join EU
Quite the opposite.
Anyone proposing a single European army is making the same mistake as those proposing we rely on Washington.
Why the hell should we replace a single point of failure in Washington with a single point of failure in Brussels.
Yes we need to invest, but we need to invest as nations separately that can work together when willing to do so and never again be reliant upon the benevolence or malevolence of a single individual who has too much power.
Swiss cheese security works better than unified single point of failure security. What's happened in America is a big red flashing warning light on the dangers of single points of failure.
Depends what one means by a European army, no? Any effective force to deter Russia and police borders will require a unified command and control structure. Defence is also far for effective with forces that can work together and focus on specific strengths. We can't be in a situation as with Ukraine where support has often been slow, piecemeal and subject to domestic wranglings rather than decided in advance.
So a situation where like NATO each country contributes some of its forces towards a 'European Army' with specific strategic goals we all share would make sense, while maintaining an ability to act independently too.
Shouldn't have its command as Brussels though given non-EU countries would be involved and its would serve a broader collection of countries than the EU.
Joint command can be practised - and is. See the exercises in the Baltic/North Atlantic that the U.K. has participated in (complete with carriers)
It seems clear, to me, that what various European nations will do depends on the circumstance. Several would block anything vaguely opposed to Russia - right now.
What is needed multiple, flexible alliances. Some polling of common needs might make sense - if carefully structured.
For example, a common European artillery shell stockpile. But this would have to be on the basis of no vetos. Imagine a setup where you could simply buy shells from the stockpile, as a participant, at a fixed price.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
When people look back at the period the thing that gets missed is the massive reluctance to fight another war. The leaders of Britain and France had served or had close relatives who had in the trenches. For the French in particular the Great War was catastrophic in terms of casualties. No one wanted that again.
So while invading Germany was probably the best and only way to end/win the war early, it is almost impossible to imagine the French actually doing it.
Essentially our war plan in 1939 was to rerun WW1. Halt the Germans with fortifications and blockade them into defeat. It was a very poor plan.
It did not turn out well. And yet for all we think of the second war as vastly different from the first, if you look at how the British in particular fought, it was very much in the style perfected in late 1917 and 1918. Huge preponderance of guns, generally surprise in attack, limited bite and hold tactics, knowing that the Germans always, always counter attack. And in terms of casualties the rate of loss from June 6th 1944 to the end of the war was as bad or worse than the 1914-1918 average. It’s just that we only kept small armies in the field for most of the war fighting round the edges.
Arieh Kovler @ariehkovler · 1h Like, at a certain point you've gotta change the name. Once the White House is publishing images of King Donald in a crown and robe while he says "Long Live the King", it's probably time to think of a better name than the Republican Party.
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The reaspn is twofold. Firstly we will have to use it to some extent. If the US is abandoning Ukraine then we will have to provide either a peacekeeping force, weapons to Ukraine, and/or beef up defences on its borders should a pro-Russian regime be installed. Plus in doing that maintain our current forces if not increase them elsewhere. Quite possibly without American troops currently stationed in Eastern Europe. For example one reason Poland is reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine is it has its own border defences with Russia and Belarus and the Polish corridor to think about.
Secondly, it's about deterrence and vital defensive capabilities. The bulk of our new spending would likely be on air defence systems that can replace what the US did effectively provide as a guarantor. In general our defence is also currently integrated with the US and can't function fully without American help. That's how it's been designed as in theory it worked well for both as a way of extending American combat power while reducing the cost to us. So just to stand still and maintain our capabilities we had when NATO functioned fully we'll have to spend more. And more still if we believe the threat from Russia has increased.
Also why a peace deal favouring Russia is very much not on our interest. The potential costs far outweigh any short term benefits.
Thanks all for your answers. I remain of the view that European military spending is probably sufficient at the moment, taking into account our technological advantage, the fact Ukraine has managed to f*ck the Russians up big time, and our unwillingness to ever do an Erdogan.
I'd support a highly targeted reform of our defence spending, particularly around drones, stocks of ammo and cables, and the associated expense of that, if we accompany it with a new pro-active doctrine. That might mean sinking dodgy ships in the Baltic, RAF sorties over Ukraine, and a rotated garrison in Kyiv.
I am not sold on an arbitrary increase to 3/4% without an explanation of what it's actually for.
My guess is:
(1) British Army - we need to sustain a warfighting division in the field in the medium-long term. That's 10,000+ troops with rotations every 6 months, fully equipped and armed with artillery, tanks, light vehicles, ammo and engineers/logistics. Probably requires army back up at 110,000 men given we struggled with Telic/Herrick with just 100k. (2) Royal Navy - woefully short of escorts and men. Probably 10 x destroyers, 2 x cruisers and 16-18 frigates needed. 12 x attack subs. Full nuclear deterrent for Dreadnought of 4 x bomber subs. High availability. Fully fuelled. RFA to match. Royal Marines and landing ships on top. (3) RAF - complete Tempest/get all necessary F35 squadrons, upgrade maritime patrol aircraft, ensure hypersonic missile defences. Several addition squadrons. Chinook/Wessex helicopter fleet upgrades. Lots more cruise missiles and tactical missiles. Maybe some tactical nuclear warheads on top.
Then you need electronic warfare and cyber/hybrid warfare defences, proper funding of the security services, and special forces on top.
All of that would make us very credible in defence. But you couldn't do it all with 2.5%.
Worthless analysis.
There's no more capacity to build more ships in the UK.
Wessex went out of service in 2003.
Tempest won't be anything until 2040 (if ever) so if the need is as pressing as the Russophobe neurotics would have us believe then that has to go in the bin for more Typhoon.
If the government really wants to upgrade defence capability, it needs to start with a consideration of the people (not "men"). Work out what levels it can get to in each specialty at various levels of expenditure. Eg extra 5bn/year gets you another 20 FJ pilots, 100 sonar techs, etc. Then buy the amount of hardware commensurate to match the people. Starting with the hardware and working back is facile.
Can you still get in your uniform? Nail the letterbox shut if I were you.
I saw the news that Starmer and Macron might be heading to Washington next week. If they fail to move Trump from his current position on Ukraine - and I fully expect they will fail although I will not consider this a failure on their part - then they should make it clear that this will be the last time there will be such meetings with Trump. If he persists in treating his allies as enemies then there is no point continuing to pander to him. Let him truly be the isolationist he wants to be.
New Hegseth memo we obtained on Fy 2026-Fydp 8% alignment lists 17 exemptions to reductions. The Pentagon's biggest program, the F 35, is not one of them.. https://x.com/ACapaccio/status/1892311396362203420
Arieh Kovler @ariehkovler · 1h Like, at a certain point you've gotta change the name. Once the White House is publishing images of King Donald in a crown and robe while he says "Long Live the King", it's probably time to think of a better name than the Republican Party.
There's a tradition of names that are the inverse of what you actually believe in.
People's Democratic Republic led by monarchical authoritarians with no people power.
Holy Roman Empire that is neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.
Today's Republican Party is following in that ignoble tradition.
Could there be a PB Prediction Competition where everyone picks an outcome to which they think they'd assign a much higher probability than everyone else would?
E.g. if somebody feels the RoC and PRC will reunify peacefully by the end of the year, or that Trump will be impeached, convicted, and jailed, they might choose that.
Reformulating slightly, I think I am probably the only person here who thinks there's a greater than 20% chance Starmer will be widely remembered and recognised as our greatest PM since Churchill.
I do think the PM needs to say something, tonight, on the record. A pool clip at least.
There's not much more he can say that he hasn't already said. The time for further speeches will be after the trip to the US. Trump is likely to try to humiliate him. How he reacts to that will matter hugely
The 'special relationship' is dead, NATO is dead, the 'west' is dead.
America is no longer an ally.
We need to react accordingly - and fast.
UK and Canada should join EU
Quite the opposite.
Anyone proposing a single European army is making the same mistake as those proposing we rely on Washington.
Why the hell should we replace a single point of failure in Washington with a single point of failure in Brussels.
Yes we need to invest, but we need to invest as nations separately that can work together when willing to do so and never again be reliant upon the benevolence or malevolence of a single individual who has too much power.
Swiss cheese security works better than unified single point of failure security. What's happened in America is a big red flashing warning light on the dangers of single points of failure.
Depends what one means by a European army, no? Any effective force to deter Russia and police borders will require a unified command and control structure. Defence is also far for effective with forces that can work together and focus on specific strengths. We can't be in a situation as with Ukraine where support has often been slow, piecemeal and subject to domestic wranglings rather than decided in advance.
So a situation where like NATO each country contributes some of its forces towards a 'European Army' with specific strategic goals we all share would make sense, while maintaining an ability to act independently too.
Shouldn't have its command as Brussels though given non-EU countries would be involved and its would serve a broader collection of countries than the EU.
Joint command can be practised - and is. See the exercises in the Baltic/North Atlantic that the U.K. has participated in (complete with carriers)
It seems clear, to me, that what various European nations will do depends on the circumstance. Several would block anything vaguely opposed to Russia - right now.
What is needed multiple, flexible alliances. Some polling of common needs might make sense - if carefully structured.
For example, a common European artillery shell stockpile. But this would have to be on the basis of no vetos. Imagine a setup where you could simply buy shells from the stockpile, as a participant, at a fixed price.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
When people look back at the period the thing that gets missed is the massive reluctance to fight another war. The leaders of Britain and France had served or had close relatives who had in the trenches. For the French in particular the Great War was catastrophic in terms of casualties. No one wanted that again.
So while invading Germany was probably the best and only way to end/win the war early, it is almost impossible to imagine the French actually doing it.
Essentially our war plan in 1939 was to rerun WW1. Halt the Germans with fortifications and blockade them into defeat. It was a very poor plan.
It did not turn out well. And yet for all we think of the second war as vastly different from the first, if you look at how the British in particular fought, it was very much in the style perfected in late 1917 and 1918. Huge preponderance of guns, generally surprise in attack, limited bite and hold tactics, knowing that the Germans always, always counter attack. And in terms of casualties the rate of loss from June 6th 1944 to the end of the war was as bad or worse than the 1914-1918 average. It’s just that we only kept small armies in the field for most of the war fighting round the edges.
Monty was really a very good WW1 General. In a set-piece battle like El Alamein or D-Day he was the consumate planner of a combined arms attritional battle.
It was fast moving battles of mobile columns that were beyond him.
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The reaspn is twofold. Firstly we will have to use it to some extent. If the US is abandoning Ukraine then we will have to provide either a peacekeeping force, weapons to Ukraine, and/or beef up defences on its borders should a pro-Russian regime be installed. Plus in doing that maintain our current forces if not increase them elsewhere. Quite possibly without American troops currently stationed in Eastern Europe. For example one reason Poland is reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine is it has its own border defences with Russia and Belarus and the Polish corridor to think about.
Secondly, it's about deterrence and vital defensive capabilities. The bulk of our new spending would likely be on air defence systems that can replace what the US did effectively provide as a guarantor. In general our defence is also currently integrated with the US and can't function fully without American help. That's how it's been designed as in theory it worked well for both as a way of extending American combat power while reducing the cost to us. So just to stand still and maintain our capabilities we had when NATO functioned fully we'll have to spend more. And more still if we believe the threat from Russia has increased.
Also why a peace deal favouring Russia is very much not on our interest. The potential costs far outweigh any short term benefits.
Thanks all for your answers. I remain of the view that European military spending is probably sufficient at the moment, taking into account our technological advantage, the fact Ukraine has managed to f*ck the Russians up big time, and our unwillingness to ever do an Erdogan.
I'd support a highly targeted reform of our defence spending, particularly around drones, stocks of ammo and cables, and the associated expense of that, if we accompany it with a new pro-active doctrine. That might mean sinking dodgy ships in the Baltic, RAF sorties over Ukraine, and a rotated garrison in Kyiv.
I am not sold on an arbitrary increase to 3/4% without an explanation of what it's actually for.
My guess is:
(1) British Army - we need to sustain a warfighting division in the field in the medium-long term. That's 10,000+ troops with rotations every 6 months, fully equipped and armed with artillery, tanks, light vehicles, ammo and engineers/logistics. Probably requires army back up at 110,000 men given we struggled with Telic/Herrick with just 100k. (2) Royal Navy - woefully short of escorts and men. Probably 10 x destroyers, 2 x cruisers and 16-18 frigates needed. 12 x attack subs. Full nuclear deterrent for Dreadnought of 4 x bomber subs. High availability. Fully fuelled. RFA to match. Royal Marines and landing ships on top. (3) RAF - complete Tempest/get all necessary F35 squadrons, upgrade maritime patrol aircraft, ensure hypersonic missile defences. Several addition squadrons. Chinook/Wessex helicopter fleet upgrades. Lots more cruise missiles and tactical missiles. Maybe some tactical nuclear warheads on top.
Then you need electronic warfare and cyber/hybrid warfare defences, proper funding of the security services, and special forces on top.
All of that would make us very credible in defence. But you couldn't do it all with 2.5%.
Worthless analysis.
There's no more capacity to build more ships in the UK.
Wessex went out of service in 2003.
Tempest won't be anything until 2040 (if ever) so if the need is as pressing as the Russophobe neurotics would have us believe then that has to go in the bin for more Typhoon.
If the government really wants to upgrade defence capability, it needs to start with a consideration of the people (not "men"). Work out what levels it can get to in each specialty at various levels of expenditure. Eg extra 5bn/year gets you another 20 FJ pilots, 100 sonar techs, etc. Then buy the amount of hardware commensurate to match the people. Starting with the hardware and working back is facile.
Can you still get in your uniform? Nail the letterbox shut if I were you.
Not a carnist or piss artist so I still weigh the same as I did when was 18.
I'd certainly go, if called, but it seems unlikely at 57. I don't give a fuck about Ukraine but I do quite like being in wars.
I do think the PM needs to say something, tonight, on the record. A pool clip at least.
There's not much more he can say that he hasn't already said. The time for further speeches will be after the trip to the US. Trump is likely to try to humiliate him. How he reacts to that will matter hugely
The 'special relationship' is dead, NATO is dead, the 'west' is dead.
America is no longer an ally.
We need to react accordingly - and fast.
UK and Canada should join EU
Quite the opposite.
Anyone proposing a single European army is making the same mistake as those proposing we rely on Washington.
Why the hell should we replace a single point of failure in Washington with a single point of failure in Brussels.
Yes we need to invest, but we need to invest as nations separately that can work together when willing to do so and never again be reliant upon the benevolence or malevolence of a single individual who has too much power.
Swiss cheese security works better than unified single point of failure security. What's happened in America is a big red flashing warning light on the dangers of single points of failure.
Depends what one means by a European army, no? Any effective force to deter Russia and police borders will require a unified command and control structure. Defence is also far for effective with forces that can work together and focus on specific strengths. We can't be in a situation as with Ukraine where support has often been slow, piecemeal and subject to domestic wranglings rather than decided in advance.
So a situation where like NATO each country contributes some of its forces towards a 'European Army' with specific strategic goals we all share would make sense, while maintaining an ability to act independently too.
Shouldn't have its command as Brussels though given non-EU countries would be involved and its would serve a broader collection of countries than the EU.
Joint command can be practised - and is. See the exercises in the Baltic/North Atlantic that the U.K. has participated in (complete with carriers)
It seems clear, to me, that what various European nations will do depends on the circumstance. Several would block anything vaguely opposed to Russia - right now.
What is needed multiple, flexible alliances. Some polling of common needs might make sense - if carefully structured.
For example, a common European artillery shell stockpile. But this would have to be on the basis of no vetos. Imagine a setup where you could simply buy shells from the stockpile, as a participant, at a fixed price.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
When people look back at the period the thing that gets missed is the massive reluctance to fight another war. The leaders of Britain and France had served or had close relatives who had in the trenches. For the French in particular the Great War was catastrophic in terms of casualties. No one wanted that again.
So while invading Germany was probably the best and only way to end/win the war early, it is almost impossible to imagine the French actually doing it.
Essentially our war plan in 1939 was to rerun WW1. Halt the Germans with fortifications and blockade them into defeat. It was a very poor plan.
It did not turn out well. And yet for all we think of the second war as vastly different from the first, if you look at how the British in particular fought, it was very much in the style perfected in late 1917 and 1918. Huge preponderance of guns, generally surprise in attack, limited bite and hold tactics, knowing that the Germans always, always counter attack. And in terms of casualties the rate of loss from June 6th 1944 to the end of the war was as bad or worse than the 1914-1918 average. It’s just that we only kept small armies in the field for most of the war fighting round the edges.
Monty was really a very good WW1 General. In a set-piece battle like El Alamein or D-Day he was the consulate planner of a combined arms attritional battle.
It was fast moving battles of mobility that were beyond him.
He did also get the short straw post-Normandy. Caen was a tough nut to crack.
Putin says Trump must go further before he’ll even agree to meet.
Putin is entirely in the driving seat. The US has alienated its own allies, given Russia nearly all of what it wanted, bought Putin’s warped view of reality, and can’t even guarantee a meeting. The art of the deal, indeed.
Putin should ask Trump to bring cakes to the next meeting, purely to take the piss.
It would be more advisable for Trump to take lubricant.
Kemi tweets that Starmer should “get on a plane to Washington.”
Reader, Starmer is just about to get on a plane to Washington.
That’s Opposition 101. If you tell someone to do something they are doing then it looks like you’re setting the agenda.
Anyone thinking that Kemi is setting the agenda has lost contact with reality. She is obsessing about bathrooms.
I don't think whether she successfully looks like she's setting the agenda disputes that it is a standard opposition tactic to push for something already happening in the hopes that you can look like you are setting the agenda.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
Er, no. We didn't "push" anything. Putin's former vassals decided they wanted to be part of the west, not run by his puppets.
You've internalised the Trump attitude that Ukraine is just a passive possession to be handed back.
I'm sorry but this simply isn’t true. Corrupt oligarch Victor Yanukovich may have been, but he was the legitimately elected Ukrainian President at the time of his ouster; that is not disputed.
If 'we' includes the USA, we absolutely "pushed" the Maidan protests, and subsequently took control over the politics of Ukraine to the extent that there's a tape of Victoria Nuland the US Secretary of State choosing who is going to lead Ukraine and saying "Fuck the EU" because they want a say.
Of course, the USA's role in Ukraine is also completely forgotten in Trump’s revisionist account.
Yanukovich was President, but was ousted by a vote in Parliament that called for new elections, so was constitutional.
Noted. I still don't think anyone can claim that 'we' (meaning the West) 'didn't push anything'.
Hmm the West picked sides, and seems to have supported the side that the majority of Ukrainians also supported. This may have been a mistake, but it's not the same as the USA 'taking control over the politics of Ukraine', is it?
I do think the PM needs to say something, tonight, on the record. A pool clip at least.
There's not much more he can say that he hasn't already said. The time for further speeches will be after the trip to the US. Trump is likely to try to humiliate him. How he reacts to that will matter hugely
The 'special relationship' is dead, NATO is dead, the 'west' is dead.
America is no longer an ally.
We need to react accordingly - and fast.
UK and Canada should join EU
Quite the opposite.
Anyone proposing a single European army is making the same mistake as those proposing we rely on Washington.
Why the hell should we replace a single point of failure in Washington with a single point of failure in Brussels.
Yes we need to invest, but we need to invest as nations separately that can work together when willing to do so and never again be reliant upon the benevolence or malevolence of a single individual who has too much power.
Swiss cheese security works better than unified single point of failure security. What's happened in America is a big red flashing warning light on the dangers of single points of failure.
Depends what one means by a European army, no? Any effective force to deter Russia and police borders will require a unified command and control structure. Defence is also far for effective with forces that can work together and focus on specific strengths. We can't be in a situation as with Ukraine where support has often been slow, piecemeal and subject to domestic wranglings rather than decided in advance.
So a situation where like NATO each country contributes some of its forces towards a 'European Army' with specific strategic goals we all share would make sense, while maintaining an ability to act independently too.
Shouldn't have its command as Brussels though given non-EU countries would be involved and its would serve a broader collection of countries than the EU.
Joint command can be practised - and is. See the exercises in the Baltic/North Atlantic that the U.K. has participated in (complete with carriers)
It seems clear, to me, that what various European nations will do depends on the circumstance. Several would block anything vaguely opposed to Russia - right now.
What is needed multiple, flexible alliances. Some polling of common needs might make sense - if carefully structured.
For example, a common European artillery shell stockpile. But this would have to be on the basis of no vetos. Imagine a setup where you could simply buy shells from the stockpile, as a participant, at a fixed price.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
When people look back at the period the thing that gets missed is the massive reluctance to fight another war. The leaders of Britain and France had served or had close relatives who had in the trenches. For the French in particular the Great War was catastrophic in terms of casualties. No one wanted that again.
So while invading Germany was probably the best and only way to end/win the war early, it is almost impossible to imagine the French actually doing it.
Essentially our war plan in 1939 was to rerun WW1. Halt the Germans with fortifications and blockade them into defeat. It was a very poor plan.
It did not turn out well. And yet for all we think of the second war as vastly different from the first, if you look at how the British in particular fought, it was very much in the style perfected in late 1917 and 1918. Huge preponderance of guns, generally surprise in attack, limited bite and hold tactics, knowing that the Germans always, always counter attack. And in terms of casualties the rate of loss from June 6th 1944 to the end of the war was as bad or worse than the 1914-1918 average. It’s just that we only kept small armies in the field for most of the war fighting round the edges.
Monty was really a very good WW1 General. In a set-piece battle like El Alamein or D-Day he was the consulate planner of a combined arms attritional battle.
It was fast moving battles of mobility that were beyond him.
He did also get the short straw post-Normandy. Caen was a tough nut to crack.
It was a bit typical though. Patton completely out did him in Sicily, then again in the Normandy breakout, then again at the battle of the Bulge, and again in March 45 streaming into Germany.
As an individual Patton was a shit, but he really got it with mobile warfare.
Putin says Trump must go further before he’ll even agree to meet.
Putin is entirely in the driving seat. The US has alienated its own allies, given Russia nearly all of what it wanted, bought Putin’s warped view of reality, and can’t even guarantee a meeting. The art of the deal, indeed.
Putin should ask Trump to bring cakes to the next meeting, purely to take the piss.
You bring the cakes, I'll bring the old photographs I have.
Could there be a PB Prediction Competition where everyone picks an outcome to which they think they'd assign a much higher probability than everyone else would?
E.g. if somebody feels the RoC and PRC will reunify peacefully by the end of the year, or that Trump will be impeached, convicted, and jailed, they might choose that.
Reformulating slightly, I think I am probably the only person here who thinks there's a greater than 20% chance Starmer will be widely remembered and recognised as our greatest PM since Churchill.
I'm with you on that one. Several European leaders + a few others have been handed a truly scary opportunity to be something more than just another leader. Of all the people available in UK politics Starmer is in the top few for the part. (Others: Cameron, Brown, Lord Robertson, Blair. But at this moment most top politicians look less capable than Lear's fool for the part. Jenrick? Kemi? There is a joker/wild card in the pack called Boris.)
Kemi tweets that Starmer should “get on a plane to Washington.”
Reader, Starmer is just about to get on a plane to Washington.
That’s Opposition 101. If you tell someone to do something they are doing then it looks like you’re setting the agenda.
Only if you call for it before its announced. Calling for something you expect to be announced and then it is, can be a bit of gamesmanship.
Starmer's trip to Washington was announced days ago. Calling for it now is not setting the agenda.
Well exactly. She could have called for far more than the governement is doing to put pressure on them when we know Labour will have to go further and will have to take the pain of doing so in a way the opposition will not. As it is, Starmer can simply point out he said he'd do these things before.
Could there be a PB Prediction Competition where everyone picks an outcome to which they think they'd assign a much higher probability than everyone else would?
E.g. if somebody feels the RoC and PRC will reunify peacefully by the end of the year, or that Trump will be impeached, convicted, and jailed, they might choose that.
Reformulating slightly, I think I am probably the only person here who thinks there's a greater than 20% chance Starmer will be widely remembered and recognised as our greatest PM since Churchill.
I'm with you on that one. Several European leaders + a few others have been handed a truly scary opportunity to be something more than just another leader. Of all the people available in UK politics Starmer is in the top few for the part. (Others: Cameron, Brown, Lord Robertson, Blair. But at this moment most top politicians look less capable than Lear's fool for the part. Jenrick? Kemi? There is a joker/wild card in the pack called Boris.)
Can we have Benn in as Foreign Secretary? Lammy can have any promotion he wants to get out. Chancellor?
I do think the PM needs to say something, tonight, on the record. A pool clip at least.
There's not much more he can say that he hasn't already said. The time for further speeches will be after the trip to the US. Trump is likely to try to humiliate him. How he reacts to that will matter hugely
The 'special relationship' is dead, NATO is dead, the 'west' is dead.
America is no longer an ally.
We need to react accordingly - and fast.
UK and Canada should join EU
Quite the opposite.
Anyone proposing a single European army is making the same mistake as those proposing we rely on Washington.
Why the hell should we replace a single point of failure in Washington with a single point of failure in Brussels.
Yes we need to invest, but we need to invest as nations separately that can work together when willing to do so and never again be reliant upon the benevolence or malevolence of a single individual who has too much power.
Swiss cheese security works better than unified single point of failure security. What's happened in America is a big red flashing warning light on the dangers of single points of failure.
Depends what one means by a European army, no? Any effective force to deter Russia and police borders will require a unified command and control structure. Defence is also far for effective with forces that can work together and focus on specific strengths. We can't be in a situation as with Ukraine where support has often been slow, piecemeal and subject to domestic wranglings rather than decided in advance.
So a situation where like NATO each country contributes some of its forces towards a 'European Army' with specific strategic goals we all share would make sense, while maintaining an ability to act independently too.
Shouldn't have its command as Brussels though given non-EU countries would be involved and its would serve a broader collection of countries than the EU.
Joint command can be practised - and is. See the exercises in the Baltic/North Atlantic that the U.K. has participated in (complete with carriers)
It seems clear, to me, that what various European nations will do depends on the circumstance. Several would block anything vaguely opposed to Russia - right now.
What is needed multiple, flexible alliances. Some polling of common needs might make sense - if carefully structured.
For example, a common European artillery shell stockpile. But this would have to be on the basis of no vetos. Imagine a setup where you could simply buy shells from the stockpile, as a participant, at a fixed price.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
When people look back at the period the thing that gets missed is the massive reluctance to fight another war. The leaders of Britain and France had served or had close relatives who had in the trenches. For the French in particular the Great War was catastrophic in terms of casualties. No one wanted that again.
So while invading Germany was probably the best and only way to end/win the war early, it is almost impossible to imagine the French actually doing it.
Essentially our war plan in 1939 was to rerun WW1. Halt the Germans with fortifications and blockade them into defeat. It was a very poor plan.
It did not turn out well. And yet for all we think of the second war as vastly different from the first, if you look at how the British in particular fought, it was very much in the style perfected in late 1917 and 1918. Huge preponderance of guns, generally surprise in attack, limited bite and hold tactics, knowing that the Germans always, always counter attack. And in terms of casualties the rate of loss from June 6th 1944 to the end of the war was as bad or worse than the 1914-1918 average. It’s just that we only kept small armies in the field for most of the war fighting round the edges.
Monty was really a very good WW1 General. In a set-piece battle like El Alamein or D-Day he was the consumate planner of a combined arms attritional battle.
It was fast moving battles of mobile columns that were beyond him.
Weirdly I was reading his memoirs in the pub with a library bar the other day while waiting for a friend and was far more unassuming and self-deprecating than would expect. Although only got through his childhood
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
Er, no. We didn't "push" anything. Putin's former vassals decided they wanted to be part of the west, not run by his puppets.
You've internalised the Trump attitude that Ukraine is just a passive possession to be handed back.
I'm sorry but this simply isn’t true. Corrupt oligarch Victor Yanukovich may have been, but he was the legitimately elected Ukrainian President at the time of his ouster; that is not disputed.
If 'we' includes the USA, we absolutely "pushed" the Maidan protests, and subsequently took control over the politics of Ukraine to the extent that there's a tape of Victoria Nuland the US Secretary of State choosing who is going to lead Ukraine and saying "Fuck the EU" because they want a say.
Of course, the USA's role in Ukraine is also completely forgotten in Trump’s revisionist account.
Yanukovich was President, but was ousted by a vote in Parliament that called for new elections, so was constitutional.
Noted. I still don't think anyone can claim that 'we' (meaning the West) 'didn't push anything'.
Hmm the West picked sides, and seems to have supported the side that the majority of Ukrainians also supported. This may have been a mistake, but it's not the same as the USA 'taking control over the politics of Ukraine', is it?
It is an indisputable fact that the USA took control over the politics of Ukraine. As I said before, the Secretary of State is recorded having a whole conversation about who they are going to involve in the political leadership of Ukraine.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com · 29m Chris Murphy: "My prediction is that if you vote for Kash Patel, more than any other confirmation vote you make, you will come to regret this one to your grave."
Could there be a PB Prediction Competition where everyone picks an outcome to which they think they'd assign a much higher probability than everyone else would?
E.g. if somebody feels the RoC and PRC will reunify peacefully by the end of the year, or that Trump will be impeached, convicted, and jailed, they might choose that.
Reformulating slightly, I think I am probably the only person here who thinks there's a greater than 20% chance Starmer will be widely remembered and recognised as our greatest PM since Churchill.
I'm with you on that one. Several European leaders + a few others have been handed a truly scary opportunity to be something more than just another leader. Of all the people available in UK politics Starmer is in the top few for the part. (Others: Cameron, Brown, Lord Robertson, Blair. But at this moment most top politicians look less capable than Lear's fool for the part. Jenrick? Kemi? There is a joker/wild card in the pack called Boris.)
Can we have Benn in as Foreign Secretary? Lammy can have any promotion he wants to get out. Chancellor?
The forthcoming War Cabinet will probably have William Hague as Foreign Office.
I do think the PM needs to say something, tonight, on the record. A pool clip at least.
There's not much more he can say that he hasn't already said. The time for further speeches will be after the trip to the US. Trump is likely to try to humiliate him. How he reacts to that will matter hugely
The 'special relationship' is dead, NATO is dead, the 'west' is dead.
America is no longer an ally.
We need to react accordingly - and fast.
UK and Canada should join EU
Quite the opposite.
Anyone proposing a single European army is making the same mistake as those proposing we rely on Washington.
Why the hell should we replace a single point of failure in Washington with a single point of failure in Brussels.
Yes we need to invest, but we need to invest as nations separately that can work together when willing to do so and never again be reliant upon the benevolence or malevolence of a single individual who has too much power.
Swiss cheese security works better than unified single point of failure security. What's happened in America is a big red flashing warning light on the dangers of single points of failure.
Depends what one means by a European army, no? Any effective force to deter Russia and police borders will require a unified command and control structure. Defence is also far for effective with forces that can work together and focus on specific strengths. We can't be in a situation as with Ukraine where support has often been slow, piecemeal and subject to domestic wranglings rather than decided in advance.
So a situation where like NATO each country contributes some of its forces towards a 'European Army' with specific strategic goals we all share would make sense, while maintaining an ability to act independently too.
Shouldn't have its command as Brussels though given non-EU countries would be involved and its would serve a broader collection of countries than the EU.
Joint command can be practised - and is. See the exercises in the Baltic/North Atlantic that the U.K. has participated in (complete with carriers)
It seems clear, to me, that what various European nations will do depends on the circumstance. Several would block anything vaguely opposed to Russia - right now.
What is needed multiple, flexible alliances. Some polling of common needs might make sense - if carefully structured.
For example, a common European artillery shell stockpile. But this would have to be on the basis of no vetos. Imagine a setup where you could simply buy shells from the stockpile, as a participant, at a fixed price.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
When people look back at the period the thing that gets missed is the massive reluctance to fight another war. The leaders of Britain and France had served or had close relatives who had in the trenches. For the French in particular the Great War was catastrophic in terms of casualties. No one wanted that again.
So while invading Germany was probably the best and only way to end/win the war early, it is almost impossible to imagine the French actually doing it.
Essentially our war plan in 1939 was to rerun WW1. Halt the Germans with fortifications and blockade them into defeat. It was a very poor plan.
It did not turn out well. And yet for all we think of the second war as vastly different from the first, if you look at how the British in particular fought, it was very much in the style perfected in late 1917 and 1918. Huge preponderance of guns, generally surprise in attack, limited bite and hold tactics, knowing that the Germans always, always counter attack. And in terms of casualties the rate of loss from June 6th 1944 to the end of the war was as bad or worse than the 1914-1918 average. It’s just that we only kept small armies in the field for most of the war fighting round the edges.
Monty was really a very good WW1 General. In a set-piece battle like El Alamein or D-Day he was the consulate planner of a combined arms attritional battle.
It was fast moving battles of mobility that were beyond him.
He did also get the short straw post-Normandy. Caen was a tough nut to crack.
I do think the PM needs to say something, tonight, on the record. A pool clip at least.
There's not much more he can say that he hasn't already said. The time for further speeches will be after the trip to the US. Trump is likely to try to humiliate him. How he reacts to that will matter hugely
The 'special relationship' is dead, NATO is dead, the 'west' is dead.
America is no longer an ally.
We need to react accordingly - and fast.
UK and Canada should join EU
Quite the opposite.
Anyone proposing a single European army is making the same mistake as those proposing we rely on Washington.
Why the hell should we replace a single point of failure in Washington with a single point of failure in Brussels.
Yes we need to invest, but we need to invest as nations separately that can work together when willing to do so and never again be reliant upon the benevolence or malevolence of a single individual who has too much power.
Swiss cheese security works better than unified single point of failure security. What's happened in America is a big red flashing warning light on the dangers of single points of failure.
Depends what one means by a European army, no? Any effective force to deter Russia and police borders will require a unified command and control structure. Defence is also far for effective with forces that can work together and focus on specific strengths. We can't be in a situation as with Ukraine where support has often been slow, piecemeal and subject to domestic wranglings rather than decided in advance.
So a situation where like NATO each country contributes some of its forces towards a 'European Army' with specific strategic goals we all share would make sense, while maintaining an ability to act independently too.
Shouldn't have its command as Brussels though given non-EU countries would be involved and its would serve a broader collection of countries than the EU.
Joint command can be practised - and is. See the exercises in the Baltic/North Atlantic that the U.K. has participated in (complete with carriers)
It seems clear, to me, that what various European nations will do depends on the circumstance. Several would block anything vaguely opposed to Russia - right now.
What is needed multiple, flexible alliances. Some polling of common needs might make sense - if carefully structured.
For example, a common European artillery shell stockpile. But this would have to be on the basis of no vetos. Imagine a setup where you could simply buy shells from the stockpile, as a participant, at a fixed price.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
When people look back at the period the thing that gets missed is the massive reluctance to fight another war. The leaders of Britain and France had served or had close relatives who had in the trenches. For the French in particular the Great War was catastrophic in terms of casualties. No one wanted that again.
So while invading Germany was probably the best and only way to end/win the war early, it is almost impossible to imagine the French actually doing it.
Essentially our war plan in 1939 was to rerun WW1. Halt the Germans with fortifications and blockade them into defeat. It was a very poor plan.
It did not turn out well. And yet for all we think of the second war as vastly different from the first, if you look at how the British in particular fought, it was very much in the style perfected in late 1917 and 1918. Huge preponderance of guns, generally surprise in attack, limited bite and hold tactics, knowing that the Germans always, always counter attack. And in terms of casualties the rate of loss from June 6th 1944 to the end of the war was as bad or worse than the 1914-1918 average. It’s just that we only kept small armies in the field for most of the war fighting round the edges.
Monty was really a very good WW1 General. In a set-piece battle like El Alamein or D-Day he was the consulate planner of a combined arms attritional battle.
It was fast moving battles of mobility that were beyond him.
He did also get the short straw post-Normandy. Caen was a tough nut to crack.
To be fair, Overlord was Monty’s plan, and thus he chose to take on the bulk of the Wehrmacht, and the armoured divisions (always expected at the Eastern extent of the invasion as closest to Germany/the Pas de Calais.
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country. More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
Maybe they can join the British Army
That would require an awful lot of investment in DEI. Based on unemployments stats, your typical squaddie should be a girl from Yorkshire from a Pakistani background.
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The reaspn is twofold. Firstly we will have to use it to some extent. If the US is abandoning Ukraine then we will have to provide either a peacekeeping force, weapons to Ukraine, and/or beef up defences on its borders should a pro-Russian regime be installed. Plus in doing that maintain our current forces if not increase them elsewhere. Quite possibly without American troops currently stationed in Eastern Europe. For example one reason Poland is reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine is it has its own border defences with Russia and Belarus and the Polish corridor to think about.
Secondly, it's about deterrence and vital defensive capabilities. The bulk of our new spending would likely be on air defence systems that can replace what the US did effectively provide as a guarantor. In general our defence is also currently integrated with the US and can't function fully without American help. That's how it's been designed as in theory it worked well for both as a way of extending American combat power while reducing the cost to us. So just to stand still and maintain our capabilities we had when NATO functioned fully we'll have to spend more. And more still if we believe the threat from Russia has increased.
Also why a peace deal favouring Russia is very much not on our interest. The potential costs far outweigh any short term benefits.
Thanks all for your answers. I remain of the view that European military spending is probably sufficient at the moment, taking into account our technological advantage, the fact Ukraine has managed to f*ck the Russians up big time, and our unwillingness to ever do an Erdogan.
I'd support a highly targeted reform of our defence spending, particularly around drones, stocks of ammo and cables, and the associated expense of that, if we accompany it with a new pro-active doctrine. That might mean sinking dodgy ships in the Baltic, RAF sorties over Ukraine, and a rotated garrison in Kyiv.
I am not sold on an arbitrary increase to 3/4% without an explanation of what it's actually for.
My guess is:
(1) British Army - we need to sustain a warfighting division in the field in the medium-long term. That's 10,000+ troops with rotations every 6 months, fully equipped and armed with artillery, tanks, light vehicles, ammo and engineers/logistics. Probably requires army back up at 110,000 men given we struggled with Telic/Herrick with just 100k. (2) Royal Navy - woefully short of escorts and men. Probably 10 x destroyers, 2 x cruisers and 16-18 frigates needed. 12 x attack subs. Full nuclear deterrent for Dreadnought of 4 x bomber subs. High availability. Fully fuelled. RFA to match. Royal Marines and landing ships on top. (3) RAF - complete Tempest/get all necessary F35 squadrons, upgrade maritime patrol aircraft, ensure hypersonic missile defences. Several addition squadrons. Chinook/Wessex helicopter fleet upgrades. Lots more cruise missiles and tactical missiles. Maybe some tactical nuclear warheads on top.
Then you need electronic warfare and cyber/hybrid warfare defences, proper funding of the security services, and special forces on top.
All of that would make us very credible in defence. But you couldn't do it all with 2.5%.
Worthless analysis.
There's no more capacity to build more ships in the UK.
Wessex went out of service in 2003.
Tempest won't be anything until 2040 (if ever) so if the need is as pressing as the Russophobe neurotics would have us believe then that has to go in the bin for more Typhoon.
If the government really wants to upgrade defence capability, it needs to start with a consideration of the people (not "men"). Work out what levels it can get to in each specialty at various levels of expenditure. Eg extra 5bn/year gets you another 20 FJ pilots, 100 sonar techs, etc. Then buy the amount of hardware commensurate to match the people. Starting with the hardware and working back is facile.
Can you still get in your uniform? Nail the letterbox shut if I were you.
Not a carnist or piss artist so I still weigh the same as I did when was 18.
I'd certainly go, if called, but it seems unlikely at 57. I don't give a fuck about Ukraine but I do quite like being in wars.
I'm very curious as to what the senior military and intelligence staff must be thinking. They may have voted for Trump. But when their entire careers have at best been to be very wary of Russia, at worst have seen it as the enemy they have trained to defeat - how must they feel when to all intents and purposes, their Commander in Chief has changed sides?
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country. More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
Maybe they can join the British Army
That would require an awful lot of investment in DEI. Based on unemployments stats, your typical squaddie should be a girl from Yorkshire from a Pakistani background.
That might actually be good for her. Well... except for the getting shot at part.
I'm very curious as to what the senior military and intelligence staff must be thinking. They may have voted for Trump. But when their entire careers have at best been to be very wary of Russia, at worst have seen it as the enemy they have trained to defeat - how must they feel when to all intents and purposes, their Commander in Chief has changed sides?
Trump just wants to be loved and worshipped in the USA - he couldn't give a toss what outsiders think about him. His judgement is that most Americans couldn't give a flying fuck about Ukraine, and are only vaguely aware of where it is. Sadly, he's probably right.
Kemi tweets that Starmer should “get on a plane to Washington.”
Reader, Starmer is just about to get on a plane to Washington.
That’s Opposition 101. If you tell someone to do something they are doing then it looks like you’re setting the agenda.
Anyone thinking that Kemi is setting the agenda has lost contact with reality. She is obsessing about bathrooms.
I don't think whether she successfully looks like she's setting the agenda disputes that it is a standard opposition tactic to push for something already happening in the hopes that you can look like you are setting the agenda.
That worked for the 1960s/1970s Liberal Party in urban areas, but when everyone has access to the internet, not so clever.
I'm very curious as to what the senior military and intelligence staff must be thinking. They may have voted for Trump. But when their entire careers have at best been to be very wary of Russia, at worst have seen it as the enemy they have trained to defeat - how must they feel when to all intents and purposes, their Commander in Chief has changed sides?
I imagine they will be thinking the country crossed the rubicon voting, eyes open and with reasonable foreknowledge, about what Trump would do, and that requires changing all their career presumptions.
I'm very curious as to what the senior military and intelligence staff must be thinking. They may have voted for Trump. But when their entire careers have at best been to be very wary of Russia, at worst have seen it as the enemy they have trained to defeat - how must they feel when to all intents and purposes, their Commander in Chief has changed sides?
Exactly what I have been thinking today.
Unless you think that there's any chance of them staging a coup then it matters not a jot.
Kemi tweets that Starmer should “get on a plane to Washington.”
Reader, Starmer is just about to get on a plane to Washington.
That’s Opposition 101. If you tell someone to do something they are doing then it looks like you’re setting the agenda.
Anyone thinking that Kemi is setting the agenda has lost contact with reality. She is obsessing about bathrooms.
I don't think whether she successfully looks like she's setting the agenda disputes that it is a standard opposition tactic to push for something already happening in the hopes that you can look like you are setting the agenda.
That worked for the 1960s/1970s Liberal Party in urban areas, but when everyone has access to the internet, not so clever.
Definitely harder to pull off, to be sure, like saying different things in different parts of the country (I've read before the Canadians had an equivalent of saying one thing in English and something slightly different in French).
Who will go first and say this is such a grave emergency that the US constitution must be put in the bin for an, ahem, short while? Will it be MAGAmusk or will it be the sanies? Both sides seem to be moving in that direction. I'm pro-sanie and wouldn't have a big problem with the CIA bringing down Air Force One or the US military stepping into the White House and saying this is where it stops, you fucker. I'm getting the impression that many other pro-sanies feel likewise, from various different positions within pro-sanieism.
Interesting times. And of course the developments in the USA benefit both Russia and China. I am anti-Zelensky and anti-NATO and think the 6 territories should be in Russia, but that doesn't stop me from believing it to be highly likely that Trump is Russian property. The weakening of the USA caused by the binning of the constitution in that country would benefit the elites in the EU and Britain too, if their heads weren't structurally so far up the USA's bum. Windsor Davies applies.
Has what used to be "the West" now entered the period of being Upper Volta with missiles?
I'd be surprised if the cherry tree myth is well known in the UK, but like me enough will have picked it up from american TV shows?
We were told it at school.
I certainly wasn't, we weren't taught anything about the early days of the USA (come to think of it I don't think we got taught anything at all about the USA, until A level when there was a choice of 19th century russian history or the USA civil rights movement - I did the former as Tsars are more interesting).
Trump just wants to be loved and worshipped in the USA - he couldn't give a toss what outsiders think about him. His judgement is that most Americans couldn't give a flying fuck about Ukraine, and are only vaguely aware of where it is. Sadly, he's probably right.
Might be some futile last gasp outrage from the dying embers of former GOP officialdom, but the voting public will presumably already be looking at the midterms and economic matters.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
Er, no. We didn't "push" anything. Putin's former vassals decided they wanted to be part of the west, not run by his puppets.
You've internalised the Trump attitude that Ukraine is just a passive possession to be handed back.
I'm sorry but this simply isn’t true. Corrupt oligarch Victor Yanukovich may have been, but he was the legitimately elected Ukrainian President at the time of his ouster; that is not disputed.
If 'we' includes the USA, we absolutely "pushed" the Maidan protests, and subsequently took control over the politics of Ukraine to the extent that there's a tape of Victoria Nuland the US Secretary of State choosing who is going to lead Ukraine and saying "Fuck the EU" because they want a say.
Of course, the USA's role in Ukraine is also completely forgotten in Trump’s revisionist account.
Yanukovich was President, but was ousted by a vote in Parliament that called for new elections, so was constitutional.
Noted. I still don't think anyone can claim that 'we' (meaning the West) 'didn't push anything'.
Hmm the West picked sides, and seems to have supported the side that the majority of Ukrainians also supported. This may have been a mistake, but it's not the same as the USA 'taking control over the politics of Ukraine', is it?
It is an indisputable fact that the USA took control over the politics of Ukraine. As I said before, the Secretary of State is recorded having a whole conversation about who they are going to involve in the political leadership of Ukraine.
It's not an 'indisputable fact'. Just because the US might have had preferences among those they regarded as big players is not the same as them 'taking control over the politics of Ukraine' is it? Do you see that?
Or do you have some actual evidence of the USA taking control of the politics of Ukraine?
I do think the PM needs to say something, tonight, on the record. A pool clip at least.
There's not much more he can say that he hasn't already said. The time for further speeches will be after the trip to the US. Trump is likely to try to humiliate him. How he reacts to that will matter hugely
The 'special relationship' is dead, NATO is dead, the 'west' is dead.
America is no longer an ally.
We need to react accordingly - and fast.
UK and Canada should join EU
Quite the opposite.
Anyone proposing a single European army is making the same mistake as those proposing we rely on Washington.
Why the hell should we replace a single point of failure in Washington with a single point of failure in Brussels.
Yes we need to invest, but we need to invest as nations separately that can work together when willing to do so and never again be reliant upon the benevolence or malevolence of a single individual who has too much power.
Swiss cheese security works better than unified single point of failure security. What's happened in America is a big red flashing warning light on the dangers of single points of failure.
Depends what one means by a European army, no? Any effective force to deter Russia and police borders will require a unified command and control structure. Defence is also far for effective with forces that can work together and focus on specific strengths. We can't be in a situation as with Ukraine where support has often been slow, piecemeal and subject to domestic wranglings rather than decided in advance.
So a situation where like NATO each country contributes some of its forces towards a 'European Army' with specific strategic goals we all share would make sense, while maintaining an ability to act independently too.
Shouldn't have its command as Brussels though given non-EU countries would be involved and its would serve a broader collection of countries than the EU.
Joint command can be practised - and is. See the exercises in the Baltic/North Atlantic that the U.K. has participated in (complete with carriers)
It seems clear, to me, that what various European nations will do depends on the circumstance. Several would block anything vaguely opposed to Russia - right now.
What is needed multiple, flexible alliances. Some polling of common needs might make sense - if carefully structured.
For example, a common European artillery shell stockpile. But this would have to be on the basis of no vetos. Imagine a setup where you could simply buy shells from the stockpile, as a participant, at a fixed price.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
When people look back at the period the thing that gets missed is the massive reluctance to fight another war. The leaders of Britain and France had served or had close relatives who had in the trenches. For the French in particular the Great War was catastrophic in terms of casualties. No one wanted that again.
So while invading Germany was probably the best and only way to end/win the war early, it is almost impossible to imagine the French actually doing it.
Essentially our war plan in 1939 was to rerun WW1. Halt the Germans with fortifications and blockade them into defeat. It was a very poor plan.
It did not turn out well. And yet for all we think of the second war as vastly different from the first, if you look at how the British in particular fought, it was very much in the style perfected in late 1917 and 1918. Huge preponderance of guns, generally surprise in attack, limited bite and hold tactics, knowing that the Germans always, always counter attack. And in terms of casualties the rate of loss from June 6th 1944 to the end of the war was as bad or worse than the 1914-1918 average. It’s just that we only kept small armies in the field for most of the war fighting round the edges.
Monty was really a very good WW1 General. In a set-piece battle like El Alamein or D-Day he was the consulate planner of a combined arms attritional battle.
It was fast moving battles of mobility that were beyond him.
He did also get the short straw post-Normandy. Caen was a tough nut to crack.
I do think the PM needs to say something, tonight, on the record. A pool clip at least.
There's not much more he can say that he hasn't already said. The time for further speeches will be after the trip to the US. Trump is likely to try to humiliate him. How he reacts to that will matter hugely
The 'special relationship' is dead, NATO is dead, the 'west' is dead.
America is no longer an ally.
We need to react accordingly - and fast.
UK and Canada should join EU
Quite the opposite.
Anyone proposing a single European army is making the same mistake as those proposing we rely on Washington.
Why the hell should we replace a single point of failure in Washington with a single point of failure in Brussels.
Yes we need to invest, but we need to invest as nations separately that can work together when willing to do so and never again be reliant upon the benevolence or malevolence of a single individual who has too much power.
Swiss cheese security works better than unified single point of failure security. What's happened in America is a big red flashing warning light on the dangers of single points of failure.
Depends what one means by a European army, no? Any effective force to deter Russia and police borders will require a unified command and control structure. Defence is also far for effective with forces that can work together and focus on specific strengths. We can't be in a situation as with Ukraine where support has often been slow, piecemeal and subject to domestic wranglings rather than decided in advance.
So a situation where like NATO each country contributes some of its forces towards a 'European Army' with specific strategic goals we all share would make sense, while maintaining an ability to act independently too.
Shouldn't have its command as Brussels though given non-EU countries would be involved and its would serve a broader collection of countries than the EU.
Joint command can be practised - and is. See the exercises in the Baltic/North Atlantic that the U.K. has participated in (complete with carriers)
It seems clear, to me, that what various European nations will do depends on the circumstance. Several would block anything vaguely opposed to Russia - right now.
What is needed multiple, flexible alliances. Some polling of common needs might make sense - if carefully structured.
For example, a common European artillery shell stockpile. But this would have to be on the basis of no vetos. Imagine a setup where you could simply buy shells from the stockpile, as a participant, at a fixed price.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
When people look back at the period the thing that gets missed is the massive reluctance to fight another war. The leaders of Britain and France had served or had close relatives who had in the trenches. For the French in particular the Great War was catastrophic in terms of casualties. No one wanted that again.
So while invading Germany was probably the best and only way to end/win the war early, it is almost impossible to imagine the French actually doing it.
Essentially our war plan in 1939 was to rerun WW1. Halt the Germans with fortifications and blockade them into defeat. It was a very poor plan.
It did not turn out well. And yet for all we think of the second war as vastly different from the first, if you look at how the British in particular fought, it was very much in the style perfected in late 1917 and 1918. Huge preponderance of guns, generally surprise in attack, limited bite and hold tactics, knowing that the Germans always, always counter attack. And in terms of casualties the rate of loss from June 6th 1944 to the end of the war was as bad or worse than the 1914-1918 average. It’s just that we only kept small armies in the field for most of the war fighting round the edges.
Monty was really a very good WW1 General. In a set-piece battle like El Alamein or D-Day he was the consulate planner of a combined arms attritional battle.
It was fast moving battles of mobility that were beyond him.
He did also get the short straw post-Normandy. Caen was a tough nut to crack.
To be fair, Overlord was Monty’s plan, and thus he chose to take on the bulk of the Wehrmacht, and the armoured divisions (always expected at the Eastern extent of the invasion as closest to Germany/the Pas de Calais.
As I look out my bedroom window at rolling Devon hills, behind the nearest one is Sheplegh Court, occupied by Eisenhower during the latter stages of WW2. Churchill and Monty would join him there to plan the invasion of France. It was in the middle of the area evacuated for training for the landings at Normandy. Very secure. My house was taken over by American officers and it is likely Eisenhower and maybe others would have visited, such is the vista for training exercises.
Such was the extent of live fire exercises here, many of the trees are still a challenge to cut down with chainsaws, so numerous are the bullets contained within their trunks.
(Sheplegh Court later became a nudist hotel of some notoriety.)
Trump just wants to be loved and worshipped in the USA - he couldn't give a toss what outsiders think about him. His judgement is that most Americans couldn't give a flying fuck about Ukraine, and are only vaguely aware of where it is. Sadly, he's probably right.
The plan is, presumably, to slash and burn the American state as quickly as possible, so that he can buy the voters' love by implementing big tax cuts? Also, the Putin fellatio has the added benefit of bringing Russian oil back to market, which might help to slightly lower those gas prices about which most American consumers are obsessed. God alone knows whether it'll work, though there's a non-negligible chance that Trump plans to ensure he gets his third term through a combination of ballot rigging and a puppet Supreme Court to reinterpret the Constitution in any case.
Could there be a PB Prediction Competition where everyone picks an outcome to which they think they'd assign a much higher probability than everyone else would?
E.g. if somebody feels the RoC and PRC will reunify peacefully by the end of the year, or that Trump will be impeached, convicted, and jailed, they might choose that.
Reformulating slightly, I think I am probably the only person here who thinks there's a greater than 20% chance Starmer will be widely remembered and recognised as our greatest PM since Churchill.
I said Trump would be too crazily bad to survive his term. That was niche but now probably not so much.
Trump just wants to be loved and worshipped in the USA - he couldn't give a toss what outsiders think about him. His judgement is that most Americans couldn't give a flying fuck about Ukraine, and are only vaguely aware of where it is. Sadly, he's probably right.
Might be some futile last gasp outrage from the dying embers of former GOP officialdom, but the voting public will presumably already be looking at the midterms and economic matters.
They might not be too rosy, with 200 000 job losses expected in next month's figures.
Marco Rubio was, up until recently, chairman of the Senate intel committee. As such, he signed a letter addressed to President Biden about the GRU being responsible for attacks on Americans. Now he says there are "incredible opportunities that exist to partner with the Russians [geopolitically and economically]." https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1891943589128642711
Was a very sad interview on WATO yesterday. With a US soldier who is fighting for Ukraine. It was clear that he'd voted for Trump and was in despair at the sellout... Just the same as Trump had done to the Kurds when he'd fought with them. Fool me once.
I'm curious as to the details of the mechanism for all this.
Are they actually made redundant with redundancy pay and then have to be recruited again - wouldn't the worker demand a bonus just for re-joining ? After all they might have lost employment rights from being classed now as a new starter.
Or are workers merely being sent home on risk of redundancy, the risk being rapidly ended.
Marco Rubio was, up until recently, chairman of the Senate intel committee. As such, he signed a letter addressed to President Biden about the GRU being responsible for attacks on Americans. Now he says there are "incredible opportunities that exist to partner with the Russians [geopolitically and economically]." https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1891943589128642711
Trump just wants to be loved and worshipped in the USA - he couldn't give a toss what outsiders think about him. His judgement is that most Americans couldn't give a flying fuck about Ukraine, and are only vaguely aware of where it is. Sadly, he's probably right.
In principle and for any previous president it would be the establishment, not the electorate, that would push the president in a particular policy direction. They might actually care a lot about Ukraine. But I'm not sure the establishment has any influence now. America has gone into a Maoist style Cultural Revolution.
Was a very sad interview on WATO yesterday. With a US soldier who is fighting for Ukraine. It was clear that he'd voted for Trump and was in despair at the sellout... Just the same as Trump had done to the Kurds when he'd fought with them. Fool me once.
Or indeed Biden to the Afghanis or Obama to the Syrians or Nixon to the South Vietnamese or Eisenhower to us over Suez.
Betraying allies when you don't have to is a bipartisan tradition in America.
They get away with it because most Americans barely know where Abroad is, let alone who their allies are.
Corbyn must be very confused. He agrees with Trump.
Don't you agree with Trump about anything? I mean if you just saw 10 statements about different policy areas and forgot why he was making them... Or with Putin for that matter.
Americans want higher wages, lower prices and immigration controlled.
They're not interested in Trump's imperialist fantasies.
Which also means that most of them don't care about what happens anywhere else, so long as they have a dollar a week more to spend. The Yanks don't care whether we or the French or the Canadians live or die, let alone the Ukrainians.
How Trump is received will depend on whether the humongous tax cuts he's trying to finance by gutting the state offer more benefit than any damage the economy takes from his trade wars, or that voters may suffer from the cancellation of federal programs and grants. End of.
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country. More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
It really is the 1930s again, right down to our own blackshirts.
London having the highest unemployment rate in the country is a very inconvenient fact for people who believe in immigration-driven growth.
London also has one of the highest employment rates in the country, with 75.8% of 16 to 64 year olds employed.
You could make the case that people in other parts of the country are either sick, or so discouraged by the lack of prospects that they have left the workforce.
Why do you think London has such a high employment rate?
I genuinely wish there were principled politicians who actually believed in States rights.
The congestion charge is popular in New York, where it has successfully got the traffic moving. Why Trump feels the need to overrule local democracy is beyond me.
Americans want higher wages, lower prices and immigration controlled.
They're not interested in Trump's imperialist fantasies.
And those working building US weapons they could be selling in huge numbers to Ukraine? Those making Patriot batteries and the missiles they fire? Those refurbishing tanks and apc's that would otherwise be scrapped? There is a fortune to be made out of Ukraine by American workers. Anybody asking them?
Americans want higher wages, lower prices and immigration controlled.
They're not interested in Trump's imperialist fantasies.
Which also means that most of them don't care about what happens anywhere else, so long as they have a dollar a week more to spend. The Yanks don't care whether we or the French or the Canadians live or die, let alone the Ukrainians.
How Trump is received will depend on whether the humongous tax cuts he's trying to finance by gutting the state offer more benefit than any damage the economy takes from his trade wars, or that voters may suffer from the cancellation of federal programs and grants. End of.
The people who benefit most from any Trump tax cuts are likely to be concentrated very narrowly.
The people who will suffer various negative effects are likely to be much more widespread.
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The reaspn is twofold. Firstly we will have to use it to some extent. If the US is abandoning Ukraine then we will have to provide either a peacekeeping force, weapons to Ukraine, and/or beef up defences on its borders should a pro-Russian regime be installed. Plus in doing that maintain our current forces if not increase them elsewhere. Quite possibly without American troops currently stationed in Eastern Europe. For example one reason Poland is reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine is it has its own border defences with Russia and Belarus and the Polish corridor to think about.
Secondly, it's about deterrence and vital defensive capabilities. The bulk of our new spending would likely be on air defence systems that can replace what the US did effectively provide as a guarantor. In general our defence is also currently integrated with the US and can't function fully without American help. That's how it's been designed as in theory it worked well for both as a way of extending American combat power while reducing the cost to us. So just to stand still and maintain our capabilities we had when NATO functioned fully we'll have to spend more. And more still if we believe the threat from Russia has increased.
Also why a peace deal favouring Russia is very much not on our interest. The potential costs far outweigh any short term benefits.
Thanks all for your answers. I remain of the view that European military spending is probably sufficient at the moment, taking into account our technological advantage, the fact Ukraine has managed to f*ck the Russians up big time, and our unwillingness to ever do an Erdogan.
I'd support a highly targeted reform of our defence spending, particularly around drones, stocks of ammo and cables, and the associated expense of that, if we accompany it with a new pro-active doctrine. That might mean sinking dodgy ships in the Baltic, RAF sorties over Ukraine, and a rotated garrison in Kyiv.
I am not sold on an arbitrary increase to 3/4% without an explanation of what it's actually for.
My guess is:
(1) British Army - we need to sustain a warfighting division in the field in the medium-long term. That's 10,000+ troops with rotations every 6 months, fully equipped and armed with artillery, tanks, light vehicles, ammo and engineers/logistics. Probably requires army back up at 110,000 men given we struggled with Telic/Herrick with just 100k. (2) Royal Navy - woefully short of escorts and men. Probably 10 x destroyers, 2 x cruisers and 16-18 frigates needed. 12 x attack subs. Full nuclear deterrent for Dreadnought of 4 x bomber subs. High availability. Fully fuelled. RFA to match. Royal Marines and landing ships on top. (3) RAF - complete Tempest/get all necessary F35 squadrons, upgrade maritime patrol aircraft, ensure hypersonic missile defences. Several addition squadrons. Chinook/Wessex helicopter fleet upgrades. Lots more cruise missiles and tactical missiles. Maybe some tactical nuclear warheads on top.
Then you need electronic warfare and cyber/hybrid warfare defences, proper funding of the security services, and special forces on top.
All of that would make us very credible in defence. But you couldn't do it all with 2.5%.
Worthless analysis.
There's no more capacity to build more ships in the UK.
Wessex went out of service in 2003.
Tempest won't be anything until 2040 (if ever) so if the need is as pressing as the Russophobe neurotics would have us believe then that has to go in the bin for more Typhoon.
If the government really wants to upgrade defence capability, it needs to start with a consideration of the people (not "men"). Work out what levels it can get to in each specialty at various levels of expenditure. Eg extra 5bn/year gets you another 20 FJ pilots, 100 sonar techs, etc. Then buy the amount of hardware commensurate to match the people. Starting with the hardware and working back is facile.
You do know that it is possible for countries to start building ships? I mean, it may take a while, but it's not like it's some impossible skill that cannot be learned.
I genuinely wish there were principled politicians who actually believed in States rights.
The congestion charge is popular in New York, where it has successfully got the traffic moving. Why Trump feels the need to overrule local democracy is beyond me.
I'm very curious as to what the senior military and intelligence staff must be thinking. They may have voted for Trump. But when their entire careers have at best been to be very wary of Russia, at worst have seen it as the enemy they have trained to defeat - how must they feel when to all intents and purposes, their Commander in Chief has changed sides?
Exactly what I have been thinking today.
There is a very handy table, which ought to terrify any rational person, which shows what senior military leaders thought of him, many of them were in Trump's previous administration. These are not woke eco-warrior lefties, these are people who at least previously would have been Republican to their core.
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country. More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
It really is the 1930s again, right down to our own blackshirts.
London having the highest unemployment rate in the country is a very inconvenient fact for people who believe in immigration-driven growth.
London also has one of the highest employment rates in the country, with 75.8% of 16 to 64 year olds employed.
You could make the case that people in other parts of the country are either sick, or so discouraged by the lack of prospects that they have left the workforce.
Why do you think London has such a high employment rate?
On the assumption that both the numerator and the denominator for that figure are realistic, and in particular that they include illegals, I would say one factor is that if you're an illegal you're pretty well obliged to work to survive. Another is that there's high demand because the tower of finance capital on which the British economy is based is located in London.
Trump just wants to be loved and worshipped in the USA - he couldn't give a toss what outsiders think about him. His judgement is that most Americans couldn't give a flying fuck about Ukraine, and are only vaguely aware of where it is. Sadly, he's probably right.
Might be some futile last gasp outrage from the dying embers of former GOP officialdom, but the voting public will presumably already be looking at the midterms and economic matters.
They might not be too rosy, with 200 000 job losses expected in next month's figures.
Does that include the ones Trump has summarily dismissed?
Unemployment effectively now exists only in the inner cities.
I don't think the unemployment figures tell the full story though.
I think there's quite a bit of hidden unemployment - people off sick who aren't really, but will never work again, freelancers not getting any work, students studying pointless courses or just graduated but haven't signed on yet, people living off savings too high to qualify for benefit, etc.
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country. More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
It really is the 1930s again, right down to our own blackshirts.
London having the highest unemployment rate in the country is a very inconvenient fact for people who believe in immigration-driven growth.
London also has one of the highest employment rates in the country, with 75.8% of 16 to 64 year olds employed.
You could make the case that people in other parts of the country are either sick, or so discouraged by the lack of prospects that they have left the workforce.
Why do you think London has such a high employment rate?
Fake news. The employment rate of 16-64 year olds in London is below the UK average, at 74.3% compared with 74.9% for the UK and 75.4% for England.
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country. More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
It really is the 1930s again, right down to our own blackshirts.
London having the highest unemployment rate in the country is a very inconvenient fact for people who believe in immigration-driven growth.
London also has one of the highest employment rates in the country, with 75.8% of 16 to 64 year olds employed.
You could make the case that people in other parts of the country are either sick, or so discouraged by the lack of prospects that they have left the workforce.
Why do you think London has such a high employment rate?
On the assumption that both the numerator and the denominator for that figure are realistic, and in particular that they include illegals, I would say one factor is that if you're an illegal you're pretty well obliged to work to survive. Another is that there's high demand because the tower of finance capital on which the British economy is based is located in London.
I'm not being entirely serious: I'm just pointing out there are many ways to spin different numbers, and attempting to draw enormous conclusions from a single number for a single month is (at the very least) dangerously lazy thinking.
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country. More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
It really is the 1930s again, right down to our own blackshirts.
London having the highest unemployment rate in the country is a very inconvenient fact for people who believe in immigration-driven growth.
London also has one of the highest employment rates in the country, with 75.8% of 16 to 64 year olds employed.
You could make the case that people in other parts of the country are either sick, or so discouraged by the lack of prospects that they have left the workforce.
Why do you think London has such a high employment rate?
Fake news. The employment rate of 16-64 year olds in London is below the UK average, at 74.3% compared with 74.9% for the UK and 75.4% for England.
I'm very curious as to what the senior military and intelligence staff must be thinking. They may have voted for Trump. But when their entire careers have at best been to be very wary of Russia, at worst have seen it as the enemy they have trained to defeat - how must they feel when to all intents and purposes, their Commander in Chief has changed sides?
Or political science students addressing the question "What if the electorate elects a traitor as president?", which I hope they're being asked.
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country. More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
It really is the 1930s again, right down to our own blackshirts.
London having the highest unemployment rate in the country is a very inconvenient fact for people who believe in immigration-driven growth.
London also has one of the highest employment rates in the country, with 75.8% of 16 to 64 year olds employed.
You could make the case that people in other parts of the country are either sick, or so discouraged by the lack of prospects that they have left the workforce.
Why do you think London has such a high employment rate?
It doesn't.
Currently London has a 74.3% employment rate which is below the UK average and significantly lower than that of the rest of southern England:
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country. More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
It really is the 1930s again, right down to our own blackshirts.
London having the highest unemployment rate in the country is a very inconvenient fact for people who believe in immigration-driven growth.
London also has one of the highest employment rates in the country, with 75.8% of 16 to 64 year olds employed.
You could make the case that people in other parts of the country are either sick, or so discouraged by the lack of prospects that they have left the workforce.
Why do you think London has such a high employment rate?
Fake news. The employment rate of 16-64 year olds in London is below the UK average, at 74.3% compared with 74.9% for the UK and 75.4% for England.
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country. More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
It really is the 1930s again, right down to our own blackshirts.
London having the highest unemployment rate in the country is a very inconvenient fact for people who believe in immigration-driven growth.
London also has one of the highest employment rates in the country, with 75.8% of 16 to 64 year olds employed.
You could make the case that people in other parts of the country are either sick, or so discouraged by the lack of prospects that they have left the workforce.
Why do you think London has such a high employment rate?
Fake news. The employment rate of 16-64 year olds in London is below the UK average, at 74.3% compared with 74.9% for the UK and 75.4% for England.
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country. More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
It really is the 1930s again, right down to our own blackshirts.
London having the highest unemployment rate in the country is a very inconvenient fact for people who believe in immigration-driven growth.
London also has one of the highest employment rates in the country, with 75.8% of 16 to 64 year olds employed.
You could make the case that people in other parts of the country are either sick, or so discouraged by the lack of prospects that they have left the workforce.
Why do you think London has such a high employment rate?
Fake news. The employment rate of 16-64 year olds in London is below the UK average, at 74.3% compared with 74.9% for the UK and 75.4% for England.
I genuinely wish there were principled politicians who actually believed in States rights.
The congestion charge is popular in New York, where it has successfully got the traffic moving. Why Trump feels the need to overrule local democracy is beyond me.
Comments
And in terms of casualties the rate of loss from June 6th 1944 to the end of the war was as bad or worse than the 1914-1918 average. It’s just that we only kept small armies in the field for most of the war fighting round the edges.
@ariehkovler
·
1h
Like, at a certain point you've gotta change the name. Once the White House is publishing images of King Donald in a crown and robe while he says "Long Live the King", it's probably time to think of a better name than the Republican Party.
New Hegseth memo we obtained on Fy 2026-Fydp 8% alignment lists 17 exemptions to reductions. The Pentagon's biggest program, the F 35, is not one of them..
https://x.com/ACapaccio/status/1892311396362203420
People's Democratic Republic led by monarchical authoritarians with no people power.
Holy Roman Empire that is neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.
Today's Republican Party is following in that ignoble tradition.
It was fast moving battles of mobile columns that were beyond him.
I'd certainly go, if called, but it seems unlikely at 57. I don't give a fuck about Ukraine but I do quite like being in wars.
Starmer's trip to Washington was announced days ago. Calling for it now is not setting the agenda.
@TheTNHoller
·
37m
QUINNIPIAC POLL:
-Trump’s Gaza takeover is wildly unpopular (22-62)
-Trusting Putin even more unpopular (9-81)
https://x.com/TheTNHoller/status/1892323036419789238
JUST IN: MTA took about 7 seconds to file suit over Trump administration's decision to revoke permission for Manhattan congestion tolls. Doc:
https://x.com/joshgerstein/status/1892327063379394793
As an individual Patton was a shit, but he really got it with mobile warfare.
Its horseshoe theory again.
Goodnight all.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L2XNN0Yt6D8&pp=ygUQRnVjayB0aGUgZXUgdGFwZQ==
Listen to the conversation.
·
29m
Chris Murphy: "My prediction is that if you vote for Kash Patel, more than any other confirmation vote you make, you will come to regret this one to your grave."
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1892288041894465657
That means they’re eligible for drone strikes
Putin and Trump could work together to level Gaza and drive every last person out of the land and BJO would just shrug.
BJO doesn't care about Gaza, he hates Israel. The two are only remotely connected.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-musk-trump.html
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/19/doge-said-it-cut-8-billion-contract-8-million/79176949007/
Food for thought, this is also true if you support Reform. Revolutionary left or right, they’re two cheeks of the same backside.
His judgement is that most Americans couldn't give a flying fuck about Ukraine, and are only vaguely aware of where it is.
Sadly, he's probably right.
Interesting times. And of course the developments in the USA benefit both Russia and China. I am anti-Zelensky and anti-NATO and think the 6 territories should be in Russia, but that doesn't stop me from believing it to be highly likely that Trump is Russian property. The weakening of the USA caused by the binning of the constitution in that country would benefit the elites in the EU and Britain too, if their heads weren't structurally so far up the USA's bum. Windsor Davies applies.
Has what used to be "the West" now entered the period of being Upper Volta with missiles?
Transcript is here for people who don't want to go to youtube:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
It's not an 'indisputable fact'. Just because the US might have had preferences among those they regarded as big players is not the same as them 'taking control over the politics of Ukraine' is it? Do you see that?
Or do you have some actual evidence of the USA taking control of the politics of Ukraine?
Such was the extent of live fire exercises here, many of the trees are still a challenge to cut down with chainsaws, so numerous are the bullets contained within their trunks.
(Sheplegh Court later became a nudist hotel of some notoriety.)
https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1891943589128642711
With a US soldier who is fighting for Ukraine.
It was clear that he'd voted for Trump and was in despair at the sellout...
Just the same as Trump had done to the Kurds when he'd fought with them.
Fool me once.
Are they actually made redundant with redundancy pay and then have to be recruited again - wouldn't the worker demand a bonus just for re-joining ? After all they might have lost employment rights from being classed now as a new starter.
Or are workers merely being sent home on risk of redundancy, the risk being rapidly ended.
They're not interested in Trump's imperialist fantasies.
Betraying allies when you don't have to is a bipartisan tradition in America.
They get away with it because most Americans barely know where Abroad is, let alone who their allies are.
How Trump is received will depend on whether the humongous tax cuts he's trying to finance by gutting the state offer more benefit than any damage the economy takes from his trade wars, or that voters may suffer from the cancellation of federal programs and grants. End of.
You could make the case that people in other parts of the country are either sick, or so discouraged by the lack of prospects that they have left the workforce.
Why do you think London has such a high employment rate?
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8748/CBP-8748.pdf
Unemployment effectively now exists only in the inner cities.
The congestion charge is popular in New York, where it has successfully got the traffic moving. Why Trump feels the need to overrule local democracy is beyond me.
The people who will suffer various negative effects are likely to be much more widespread.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-10-23/the-high-profile-military-leaders-who-have-come-out-against-donald-trump
Every Trump supporter who dismissed their warnings should shut up and never speak again.
I think there's quite a bit of hidden unemployment - people off sick who aren't really, but will never work again, freelancers not getting any work, students studying pointless courses or just graduated but haven't signed on yet, people living off savings too high to qualify for benefit, etc.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/regionallabourmarket/latest
Currently London has a 74.3% employment rate which is below the UK average and significantly lower than that of the rest of southern England:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/regionallabourmarket/february2025
What London does have is a greater proportion of its non-workers as unemployed as opposed to inactive.
Which is likely caused by London's younger population profile - proportionally fewer 50-64s to be long term sick or early retirees.