OK, time for something serious for the Brains Trust.
A family member has suddenly gone enthusiastic for home prepped products (parallel to my chutney etc) - something to do with an extended illness and lots of free time.
The last time we met I was presented with various interesting frozen things, including Pressed Ox Tongue, Chicken Liver Pate, Red Cabbage something, and Ox Tongue Jelly (in cubes).
The first two are great. And Red Cabbage is fine, except it is frozen in a hunk which will risk monotony - there are four of them, and only one of me.
But how does one use Ox Tongue Jelly cubes, when many of them are more jelly than ox tongue?
I'm inclined to try it as an extra in light rice dishes, or with vegan risotto type things, or chopped up in a salad. Or even added to a soup.
I don't say this lightly but Liz Truss is edging into traitor territory. An Edward VIII figure. To think she was prime minister, even if it was just the duration of a lettuce.
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
No, but it is several steps better than flouncing.
I'll never flounce. One day I just won't be here and then that day will become a week, a month, a year, and still longer, until eventually all memory of me, and of everything I ever said, the betting calls, good and bad, the little jokes, good and bad, the bursts of whimsy, some pointless but many with an important message, is lost forever.
Yes, the memories of you could last for minutes, they could maybe stretch over lunch
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
No, but it is several steps better than flouncing.
I'll never flounce. One day I just won't be here and then that day will become a week, a month, a year, and still longer, until eventually all memory of me, and of everything I ever said, the betting calls, good and bad, the little jokes, good and bad, the bursts of whimsy, some pointless but many with an important message, is lost forever.
"I came here searching for something But I don't remember what that thing is anymore Did I dream you? Or are you dreaming me now? As your waking thoughts gradually take over As all dreams are ultimately forgotten and lost"
The Times today: "As the Lords economic affairs committee wrote to Liz Kendall last month, the £65 billion incapacity and disability benefits bill is now 20 per cent higher than Britain’s entire defence budget – and is due to reach £100 billion by 2029-30."
This is mad.
Plausible. The Boomers (born between 1945 and Dec 1964) are now all in their 60s, with the oldest being 80. There's a lot of them and between 2030-35 they'll be between 65 and 90, or "peak old people". Keeping them in a decent state as they slip into the dark will be very expensive. I don't know how to fix this.
But this is the incapacity and disability benefits bill, so not the retired? (or not just the retired)
Would love to know how much of it is going on housing benefit as I suspect that going to be a very hefty chunk
Local Housing Allowance (which is the one that used to be called HB) is about £15.612bn, which is about half of what it was at peak. I'm not sure on the Social Sector / PRS split at present.
That's a very remarkable drop, in a kind of "this is too good to be true" sort of a way. Any idea what is apparently driving it?
The year it peaked is when reforms like the cap and "bedroom tax" etc were introduced. So perhaps that has had an impact?
Or it's still getting claimed in Universal Credit but isn't showing in those figures so the figures are wrong.
One or the other would be my guess.
I'll have dig into it, but I suspect it's dodgy accounting of UC as you suggest.
OK, time for something serious for the Brains Trust.
A family member has suddenly gone enthusiastic for home prepped products (parallel to my chutney etc) - something to do with an extended illness and lots of free time.
The last time we met I was presented with various interesting frozen things, including Pressed Ox Tongue, Chicken Liver Pate, Red Cabbage something, and Ox Tongue Jelly (in cubes).
The first two are great. And Red Cabbage is fine, except it is frozen in a hunk which will risk monotony - there are four of them, and only one of me.
But how does one use Ox Tongue Jelly cubes, when many of them are more jelly than ox tongue?
I'm inclined to try it as an extra in light rice dishes, or with vegan risotto type things, or chopped up in a salad. Or even added to a soup.
Does anyone have experience of this?
Use the ox tongue jelly like stock. It should have a lot of concentrated flavour. Add it to any ragu or stew etc to deepen the flavour.
I don't say this lightly but Liz Truss is edging into traitor territory. An Edward VIII figure. To think she was prime minister, even if it was just the duration of a lettuce.
She remains of the view that Putin was the aggressor in Ukraine, and that if he succeeds in Ukraine it will be preparation for Round 2 /3 /4 ... in a few years - whatever position she is taking on Doge for UK.
I don't say this lightly but Liz Truss is edging into traitor territory. An Edward VIII figure. To think she was prime minister, even if it was just the duration of a lettuce.
This is all her coping mechanism to avoid taking responsibility for how rubbish she was at the job.
I admit to being fairly impressed with how long she is sustaining the delusion. I would not like to be around her when cruel reality hits.
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
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
No no no
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of rare beauty
Even better is the permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
You kidding me right. MexicanPete flounced three times in one day as people were being nasty about Labour !!!! You have some way to go.
No I’m talking about Permanent Flouncing. Stalking away from the site and never coming back, not even under a new name years later etc
That’s exceptionally rare. I believe I’m the only pb-er who has done it twice
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
No, but it is several steps better than flouncing.
I'll never flounce. One day I just won't be here and then that day will become a week, a month, a year, and still longer, until eventually all memory of me, and of everything I ever said, the betting calls, good and bad, the little jokes, good and bad, the bursts of whimsy, some pointless but many with an important message, is lost forever.
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
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
No no no
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of rare beauty
Even better is the permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
You kidding me right. MexicanPete flounced three times in one day as people were being nasty about Labour !!!! You have some way to go.
No I’m talking about Permanent Flouncing. Stalking away from the site and never coming back, not even under a new name years later etc
That’s exceptionally rare. I believe I’m the only pb-er who has done it twice
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
No, but it is several steps better than flouncing.
I'll never flounce. One day I just won't be here and then that day will become a week, a month, a year, and still longer, until eventually all memory of me, and of everything I ever said, the betting calls, good and bad, the little jokes, good and bad, the bursts of whimsy, some pointless but many with an important message, is lost forever.
A bit Good Will Hunting, you mean? With Leon knocking on your door one morning expecting some more highly masculine bro-banter as you head off to metaphorically lay some bricks or whatever, but instead just an empty house?
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
No, but it is several steps better than flouncing.
I'll never flounce. One day I just won't be here and then that day will become a week, a month, a year, and still longer, until eventually all memory of me, and of everything I ever said, the betting calls, good and bad, the little jokes, good and bad, the bursts of whimsy, some pointless but many with an important message, is lost forever.
I don't say this lightly but Liz Truss is edging into traitor territory. An Edward VIII figure. To think she was prime minister, even if it was just the duration of a lettuce.
I know it's a simplistic diagnosis to make, and yes, she was a little odd to begin with, but I'd say she, like many - Trump, Lineker, Vorderman, Jones - has been driven mad by twitter. The algorithm has goaded her into becoming a more and more extreme version of herself. The dopamine hits of people agreeing with you get addictive. This links to the post from election maps that @bondegezou posted earlier. If I could uninvent one thing from the 21st century, it would be twitter.
The Times today: "As the Lords economic affairs committee wrote to Liz Kendall last month, the £65 billion incapacity and disability benefits bill is now 20 per cent higher than Britain’s entire defence budget – and is due to reach £100 billion by 2029-30."
This is mad.
Plausible. The Boomers (born between 1945 and Dec 1964) are now all in their 60s, with the oldest being 80. There's a lot of them and between 2030-35 they'll be between 65 and 90, or "peak old people". Keeping them in a decent state as they slip into the dark will be very expensive. I don't know how to fix this.
But this is the incapacity and disability benefits bill, so not the retired? (or not just the retired)
Would love to know how much of it is going on housing benefit as I suspect that going to be a very hefty chunk
Local Housing Allowance (which is the one that used to be called HB) is about £15.612bn, which is about half of what it was at peak. I'm not sure on the Social Sector / PRS split at present.
That's a very remarkable drop, in a kind of "this is too good to be true" sort of a way. Any idea what is apparently driving it?
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
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
No no no
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of rare beauty
Even better is the permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
You kidding me right. MexicanPete flounced three times in one day as people were being nasty about Labour !!!! You have some way to go.
No I’m talking about Permanent Flouncing. Stalking away from the site and never coming back, not even under a new name years later etc
That’s exceptionally rare. I believe I’m the only pb-er who has done it twice
Trouble with a permanent flounce is that you can't tell whether it's really permanent unless they come back and tell you.
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
No, but it is several steps better than flouncing.
I'll never flounce. One day I just won't be here and then that day will become a week, a month, a year, and still longer, until eventually all memory of me, and of everything I ever said, the betting calls, good and bad, the little jokes, good and bad, the bursts of whimsy, some pointless but many with an important message, is lost forever.
Like tears in rain..
Plenty of that in North Durham at the moment.
The finest drizzle I have seen in some time here in North Newcastle
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
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
No no no
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of unusual beauty
Even better is the genuinely permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
Your flounces are rubbish.
The best ones are like a quadruple axle in the figure skating - the build up, the crowd on tenterhooks, the performance…
Fie on you
What you don’t realise is that I often flounce without telling people then I come back 3 minutes later. Only a Flouncemaster General can do that
Indeed I remember once I flounced during the typing of a single word, yet then carried on typing the word less than half a second later. That kind of flouncing is elite stuff but is frankly wasted on most
Balls
A PB Flounce only happens if it is observed. Your basic Quantum Mechanics stuff.
There lies the advantage for the multiple personalitied.
This minerals deal is really winding me up. Waltz is now having a dig and demanding Ukraine sign the deal.
How about the US take a step back and realise that Europe has contributed shit loads so what if we decide we want a relative share of the minerals? Problem yes?
No, America must have the minerals.
The US are acting like a fucking organised crime group.
That's been done on the cheap then. Appears to be using YourCompanyFormations as the accommodation address. Hasn't declared any Person with Significant Control but still has just the two directors and its a Ltd company...
OK, time for something serious for the Brains Trust.
A family member has suddenly gone enthusiastic for home prepped products (parallel to my chutney etc) - something to do with an extended illness and lots of free time.
The last time we met I was presented with various interesting frozen things, including Pressed Ox Tongue, Chicken Liver Pate, Red Cabbage something, and Ox Tongue Jelly (in cubes).
The first two are great. And Red Cabbage is fine, except it is frozen in a hunk which will risk monotony - there are four of them, and only one of me.
But how does one use Ox Tongue Jelly cubes, when many of them are more jelly than ox tongue?
I'm inclined to try it as an extra in light rice dishes, or with vegan risotto type things, or chopped up in a salad. Or even added to a soup.
Does anyone have experience of this?
Love Ox tongue and liver pate. Assume you use the jelly cubes as stock.
Re the red cabbage, that sounds odd. I do two things with red cabbage:
a) Pickle it using malt vinegar with coriander seeds, pepper corns and chillies
OR
b) Braise it for 3 hours chopped with onion and apple with a little dark sugar, sultanas mixed spice, grated nutmeg, smashed cloves, cinnamon and malt vinegar. Lovely with a roast, particularly pork.
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
No, but it is several steps better than flouncing.
I'll never flounce. One day I just won't be here and then that day will become a week, a month, a year, and still longer, until eventually all memory of me, and of everything I ever said, the betting calls, good and bad, the little jokes, good and bad, the bursts of whimsy, some pointless but many with an important message, is lost forever.
Yes, the memories of you could last for minutes, they could maybe stretch over lunch
@JenniferJJacobs Trump said he can't make the USA hockey game tonight against Canada -- he has a speech to the Republican Governors Association -- but said he'll "be calling in."
After Canadian fans booed the US national anthem and three fights broke out within seconds of puck drop Saturday night, Team USA's general manager said they'd welcome Trump at their rematch against Canada tonight in Boston.
I don't say this lightly but Liz Truss is edging into traitor territory. An Edward VIII figure. To think she was prime minister, even if it was just the duration of a lettuce.
This minerals deal is really winding me up. Waltz is now having a dig and demanding Ukraine sign the deal.
How about the US take a step back and realise that Europe has contributed shit loads so what if we decide we want a relative share of the minerals? Problem yes?
No, America must have the minerals.
The US are acting like a fucking organised crime group.
Sorry but this is not new. It was diguised before by diplomatic niceties, but it has ever been thus. Take the reconstruction of Iraq - when they ran out of US companies to use, reconstruction contracts went to companies from countries that had opposed the war, much less spent billions fighting it. Take the shakedown of BP after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, or the shakedown of Standard Chartered Bank. The US regularly takes piranha chunks out of lesser fish, Trump is just more blatant and obvious about it. Personally I find his candour refreshing - I'd rather be stabbed in the front than the back if those are the only two choices.
This minerals deal is really winding me up. Waltz is now having a dig and demanding Ukraine sign the deal.
How about the US take a step back and realise that Europe has contributed shit loads so what if we decide we want a relative share of the minerals? Problem yes?
No, America must have the minerals.
The US are acting like a fucking organised crime group.
How bout we just don’t treat Ukraine like a carcass who should be picked over for meat?
This minerals deal is really winding me up. Waltz is now having a dig and demanding Ukraine sign the deal.
How about the US take a step back and realise that Europe has contributed shit loads so what if we decide we want a relative share of the minerals? Problem yes?
No, America must have the minerals.
The US are acting like a fucking organised crime group.
Increasingly a disorganised crime group...
The latest is from a Finnish MEP being threatened that if they don't support Ukranian surrender then the US pulls out.
We can't trust the US anyway, so should stay loyal to Ukraine, after all fighting without them would be a lot tougher than fighting with them on our side.
I don't say this lightly but Liz Truss is edging into traitor territory. An Edward VIII figure. To think she was prime minister, even if it was just the duration of a lettuce.
I know it's a simplistic diagnosis to make, and yes, she was a little odd to begin with, but I'd say she, like many - Trump, Lineker, Vorderman, Jones - has been driven mad by twitter. The algorithm has goaded her into becoming a more and more extreme version of herself. The dopamine hits of people agreeing with you get addictive. This links to the post from election maps that @bondegezou posted earlier. If I could uninvent one thing from the 21st century, it would be twitter.
Has anyone actually read the content of her speech, and can point to something either 1. Treasonable or 2. Mad or is this amateur psychiatry attempt based on shit all as usual?
This minerals deal is really winding me up. Waltz is now having a dig and demanding Ukraine sign the deal.
How about the US take a step back and realise that Europe has contributed shit loads so what if we decide we want a relative share of the minerals? Problem yes?
No, America must have the minerals.
The US are acting like a fucking organised crime group.
How bout we just don’t treat Ukraine like a carcass who should be picked over for meat?
Well, quite. It’s just so venal and grim and as I wrote before - I bet there will be a Trump Tax clause where the family take a %.
I don't say this lightly but Liz Truss is edging into traitor territory. An Edward VIII figure. To think she was prime minister, even if it was just the duration of a lettuce.
I know it's a simplistic diagnosis to make, and yes, she was a little odd to begin with, but I'd say she, like many - Trump, Lineker, Vorderman, Jones - has been driven mad by twitter. The algorithm has goaded her into becoming a more and more extreme version of herself. The dopamine hits of people agreeing with you get addictive. This links to the post from election maps that @bondegezou posted earlier. If I could uninvent one thing from the 21st century, it would be twitter.
Has anyone actually read the content of her speech, and can point to something either 1. Treasonable or 2. Mad or is this amateur psychiatry attempt based on shit all as usual?
Norway and UK announce to work together on defence and a higher level of military cooperation including undersea prevention of cable sabotage
It's starting to feel as if Brexit never happened, what with Sir Keir striding around Europe like a colossus, running everything. As Trump and the US creep away into the shadows, Sir Keir has the opportunity to become the first predominant global figure of democracy in the 21st century. Will he seize it?
Offtopic, but nice to see the Grauniad doing their thing: The head of CPAC Hungry, Miklós Szánthó, was also present at Wednesday’s “international summit” and reminded the audience that political strategist Steve Bannon had once described Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán as “Trump before Trump”.
This minerals deal is really winding me up. Waltz is now having a dig and demanding Ukraine sign the deal.
How about the US take a step back and realise that Europe has contributed shit loads so what if we decide we want a relative share of the minerals? Problem yes?
No, America must have the minerals.
The US are acting like a fucking organised crime group.
Its really quite remarkable, especially given how perverse it all is.
We're cutting off funding oh and sign this deal - what the hell incentive is there for Ukraine to sign the deal?
We'll increase funding if you sign this deal - that could potentially have been tempting.
Norway and UK announce to work together on defence and a higher level of military cooperation including undersea prevention of cable sabotage
It's starting to feel as if Brexit never happened, what with Sir Keir striding around Europe like a colossus, running everything. As Trump and the US creep away into the shadows, Sir Keir has the opportunity to become the first predominant global figure of democracy in the 21st century. Will he seize it?
@JenniferJJacobs Trump said he can't make the USA hockey game tonight against Canada -- he has a speech to the Republican Governors Association -- but said he'll "be calling in."
After Canadian fans booed the US national anthem and three fights broke out within seconds of puck drop Saturday night, Team USA's general manager said they'd welcome Trump at their rematch against Canada tonight in Boston.
I don't say this lightly but Liz Truss is edging into traitor territory. An Edward VIII figure. To think she was prime minister, even if it was just the duration of a lettuce.
I know it's a simplistic diagnosis to make, and yes, she was a little odd to begin with, but I'd say she, like many - Trump, Lineker, Vorderman, Jones - has been driven mad by twitter. The algorithm has goaded her into becoming a more and more extreme version of herself. The dopamine hits of people agreeing with you get addictive. This links to the post from election maps that @bondegezou posted earlier. If I could uninvent one thing from the 21st century, it would be twitter.
Has anyone actually read the content of her speech, and can point to something either 1. Treasonable or 2. Mad or is this amateur psychiatry attempt based on shit all as usual?
Get over it mate
What’s the point Liz Truss is an irrelevance trying to earn money having destroyed her career and name
Norway and UK announce to work together on defence and a higher level of military cooperation including undersea prevention of cable sabotage
It's starting to feel as if Brexit never happened, what with Sir Keir striding around Europe like a colossus, running everything. As Trump and the US creep away into the shadows, Sir Keir has the opportunity to become the first predominant global figure of democracy in the 21st century. Will he seize it?
Or you're just waking up to the fact that Brexit was never a negative and that Britain could act how we voted post-Brexit.
Offtopic, but nice to see the Grauniad doing their thing: The head of CPAC Hungry, Miklós Szánthó, was also present at Wednesday’s “international summit” and reminded the audience that political strategist Steve Bannon had once described Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán as “Trump before Trump”.
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
I think there has been a gradual build up of hatred, among a section of the US population, for the UK, Europe, Canada, and other allies.
What lies behind it?
I don't understand how the better people's lives materially seem to get, the less happy they are?
The human condition is truly weird.
I can have a go: - too much alienation from other humans and from natural processes (working the land, cooking, travel as a challenge) - too much inconsequential choice - too few contrasts (eg the seasons, getting through the winter on shrivelled apples and potatoes and then appreciating in-season fruit and veg later in the year etc) - awareness of the morally repugnant disparity between the way we live and the way the poorest on the planet live - etc
I'm not arguing to go back to any of this stuff as it comes with huge downsides, but our modern capitalist system is very alienating.
Relative peer pressure/envy - “why don’t I have a nice house like those on TV/glossy magazine? Why are my holidays to X instead of an ocean villa in Mauritius? why….”
Agreed but I think there are ways to escape. I've just spent half an hour splitting wood. I submit that it is impossible to (a) ponder the state of Trump's underpants or (b) experience envy whilst splitting wood.
Offtopic, but nice to see the Grauniad doing their thing: The head of CPAC Hungry, Miklós Szánthó, was also present at Wednesday’s “international summit” and reminded the audience that political strategist Steve Bannon had once described Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán as “Trump before Trump”.
Hungary should leave the EU . Unfortunately they can’t be kicked out but deserve to be .
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
No, but it is several steps better than flouncing.
I'll never flounce. One day I just won't be here and then that day will become a week, a month, a year, and still longer, until eventually all memory of me, and of everything I ever said, the betting calls, good and bad, the little jokes, good and bad, the bursts of whimsy, some pointless but many with an important message, is lost forever.
Yes, the memories of you could last for minutes, they could maybe stretch over lunch
The Times today: "As the Lords economic affairs committee wrote to Liz Kendall last month, the £65 billion incapacity and disability benefits bill is now 20 per cent higher than Britain’s entire defence budget – and is due to reach £100 billion by 2029-30."
This is mad.
Plausible. The Boomers (born between 1945 and Dec 1964) are now all in their 60s, with the oldest being 80. There's a lot of them and between 2030-35 they'll be between 65 and 90, or "peak old people". Keeping them in a decent state as they slip into the dark will be very expensive. I don't know how to fix this.
But this is the incapacity and disability benefits bill, so not the retired? (or not just the retired)
Would love to know how much of it is going on housing benefit as I suspect that going to be a very hefty chunk
Local Housing Allowance (which is the one that used to be called HB) is about £15.612bn, which is about half of what it was at peak. I'm not sure on the Social Sector / PRS split at present.
That's a very remarkable drop, in a kind of "this is too good to be true" sort of a way. Any idea what is apparently driving it?
The year it peaked is when reforms like the cap and "bedroom tax" etc were introduced. So perhaps that has had an impact?
Or it's still getting claimed in Universal Credit but isn't showing in those figures so the figures are wrong.
One or the other would be my guess.
I'll have dig into it, but I suspect it's dodgy accounting of UC as you suggest.
I'm not diving in in the to-and-fro debate on this since I don't think anyone is willing to change views. I'm certainly interested if anything is found. For background:
- This is a stat I track and in my observation I think that has been the trend. Bluntly, there's been a continuous self-sustaining complaining noise for at least a decade. As so often in rental debates, the actuality is irrelevant as the debate is overwhelmingly driven by prejudice.
- In case anyone has not looked properly, those numbers are in real terms as noted on the graphic.
- There have also been changes such as setting it to the 30%-ile in the market for the number of bedrooms the claimant is entitled to - ie if you get two beds such as parents and 2 children under 10 you get the 2 bed rate regardless of the value of the house.
- UC is stricter than HB for eligibility, so that will have squeezed as people are moved over.
- This benefit rate is also only uprated every several years, so runs behind by a couple of years of rent increases.
- In general PRS rents rise more slowly than inflation, so over time that will have reduced the comparator.
- One on the accounting is that I'm not sure how the Benefits Cap affects this benefit, and how if it applies what is reduced. In London the cap is ~£23k per annum, which could be nearly all swallowed up by rent on even a modest house.
(Even in Enfield, the 3 bedroom house rate is £20k+ at the 30th %-ile rent. That will cause a *lot* of people to have some benefit capped, which if it is LHA will affect this number.)
The benefits cap has been cut by 15% in real terms since 2016 - CPI is +35%, benefits cap is +20% from 2016 to now. A lot more people are likely to have been affected given that salami slicing.
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
'first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office'
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
I like Vance, quite a lot
He is entirely right about migration and free speech, soon there will not be a Europe worth defending from a US perspective. This is completely correct
It’s just a shame he is VEEP to this mad baboon Trump
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
No, but it is several steps better than flouncing.
I'll never flounce. One day I just won't be here and then that day will become a week, a month, a year, and still longer, until eventually all memory of me, and of everything I ever said, the betting calls, good and bad, the little jokes, good and bad, the bursts of whimsy, some pointless but many with an important message, is lost forever.
Like tears in rain..
"I've seen C-list slebs fighting outside the Shoulder of Mutton..pants on fire at the AGM... all this will be lost, like cash ledgers in a VAT inspection."
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
I take his points, but...is the function of the Veep now? To bitch on Twitter? Is this part of a communications strategy (that's a genuine question btw: in a democracy public consent must be sought) or is he off-piste? Is it working (do focus groups or polls approve of this approach)?
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
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
Then tell the Trump Derangement Nappy Wearers to shut the fuck up.
Check out your own kecks.
That’s probably inadvisable unless wearing a hazmat suit.
I’m genuinely baffled by @kamski today - normally an interesting and intelligent poster who seems to have got painted into an unnecessary corner.
What s/he has said is:
1) There are documents claiming informal assurances about NATO expansion were given to the USSR in existence. This is true. Nobody disputes this. Whether they are correct is a different question given they were written in a different time and context to push a particular policy goal.
2) That if such assurances were given are not part of any treaty. Also true. Nobody disputes that.
3) That the USSR and Russia are the same thing in diplomatic terms for treaties. Yes and no is the answer. Because Russia declared independence from the USSR its status as the successor state had to be negotiated over a period of two years, but it was so negotiated (with, ironically, a lot of arm twisting involved from the USA under Bush). But also, not relevant, as no such treaty was made about eastward expansion except for East Germany where the point is moot.
4) Then gets *very* agitated when several people want to discuss these points.
Genuinely surprised.
Anyway, just getting to Berwick and the sun’s out. Later.
The cross purposes arise from looking at the NATO assurances as an enduring commitment (they weren't), and as a source of enduring resentment on Putin's part (they certainly are). The refusal to allow both things to be true while arguing the toss is where it all kicked off.
Meanwhile the Russian Federation has unquestionably and comprehensively broken every treaty it ever signed with Ukraine, including the Budapest Memorandum where they recognised Ukraine´s borders and sovereignty.
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
'first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office'
Why does he think that? Serious question.
Because Trump would already have thrown Ukraine under a bus .
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
'first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office'
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
This is the just chap we needed in the UK in 1940.
Note that at least twice he refers to those who started the Russia/Ukraine war without mentioning who it might have been.
And there is not a single suggestion that Putin/Russia has done a single blameworthy act.
Nor is there, apparently, any thought that 600,000,000 Europeans + 300,000,000 Americans might be a match for 145,000,000 Russians.
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
'first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office'
Why does he think that? Serious question.
I assume he thinks Trump would have rung up Putin and talked him out of it.
Right on right action whilst normally delightful 🍿, I am really glad Niall Ferguson called the maga Wally out.
Of course, Leon has stated that Ferguson is the only person he's ever met to be obviously more intelligent than him, so we're talking some serious brainpower here. No wonder silly old Vance is left burbling in the dust.
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
'first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office'
Why does he think that? Serious question.
Because Trump would already have thrown Ukraine under a bus .
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
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
Then tell the Trump Derangement Nappy Wearers to shut the fuck up.
Check out your own kecks.
That’s probably inadvisable unless wearing a hazmat suit.
I’m genuinely baffled by @kamski today - normally an interesting and intelligent poster who seems to have got painted into an unnecessary corner.
What s/he has said is:
1) There are documents claiming informal assurances about NATO expansion were given to the USSR in existence. This is true. Nobody disputes this. Whether they are correct is a different question given they were written in a different time and context to push a particular policy goal.
2) That if such assurances were given are not part of any treaty. Also true. Nobody disputes that.
3) That the USSR and Russia are the same thing in diplomatic terms for treaties. Yes and no is the answer. Because Russia declared independence from the USSR its status as the successor state had to be negotiated over a period of two years, but it was so negotiated (with, ironically, a lot of arm twisting involved from the USA under Bush). But also, not relevant, as no such treaty was made about eastward expansion except for East Germany where the point is moot.
4) Then gets *very* agitated when several people want to discuss these points.
Genuinely surprised.
Anyway, just getting to Berwick and the sun’s out. Later.
The cross purposes arise from looking at the NATO assurances as an enduring commitment (they weren't), and as a source of enduring resentment on Putin's part (they certainly are). The refusal to allow both things to be true while arguing the toss is where it all kicked off.
Meanwhile the Russian Federation has unquestionably and comprehensively broken every treaty it ever signed with Ukraine, including the Budapest Memorandum where they recognised Ukraine´s borders and sovereignty.
Well, yes. I never said there's a shred of justification for the resentment. But daft to pretend it doesn't exist.
Right on right action whilst normally delightful 🍿, I am really glad Niall Ferguson called the maga Wally out.
Of course, Leon has stated that Ferguson is the only person he's ever met to be obviously more intelligent than himself, so we're talking some serious brainpower here. No wonder silly old Vance is left burbling in the dust.
I may have to revise that opinion, as I have grown EVEN WISER over the years
However, at the time, it was entirely true. First and only moment in my life I’ve felt kinda unsteady on my feet as I encountered someone CLEARLY smarter, sharper and better read
It occurs to me now that this must be what everyone feels when they meet me. I shall strive to be kinder
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
'first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office'
Why does he think that? Serious question.
Because Trump would already have thrown Ukraine under a bus .
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
I take his points, but...is the function of the Veep now? To bitch on Twitter? Is this part of a communications strategy (that's a genuine question btw: in a democracy public consent must be sought) or is he off-piste? Is it working (do focus groups or polls approve of this approach)?
Famously, the Veep doesn't have much to do.
But that's the second screed following criticism from someone on the British non-MAGA right.
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
'first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office'
Why does he think that? Serious question.
Because Trump would already have thrown Ukraine under a bus .
Then driven the bus over Ukraine.
Then reversed.
...
Fake - a picture of a Russian tank with its turret *not* 200 feet in the air?
Right on right action whilst normally delightful 🍿, I am really glad Niall Ferguson called the maga Wally out.
Of course, Leon has stated that Ferguson is the only person he's ever met to be obviously more intelligent than himself, so we're talking some serious brainpower here. No wonder silly old Vance is left burbling in the dust.
I may have to revise that opinion, as I have grown EVEN WISER over the years
However, at the time, it was entirely true. First and only moment in my life I’ve felt kinda unsteady on my feet as I encountered someone CLEARLY smarter, sharper and better read
It occurs to me now that this must be what everyone feels when they meet me. I shall strive to be kinder
Well they certainly don't feel it when they read your posts here.
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
No, but it is several steps better than flouncing.
I'll never flounce. One day I just won't be here and then that day will become a week, a month, a year, and still longer, until eventually all memory of me, and of everything I ever said, the betting calls, good and bad, the little jokes, good and bad, the bursts of whimsy, some pointless but many with an important message, is lost forever.
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
I take his points, but...is the function of the Veep now? To bitch on Twitter? Is this part of a communications strategy (that's a genuine question btw: in a democracy public consent must be sought) or is he off-piste? Is it working (do focus groups or polls approve of this approach)?
It's clearly more strategic communcation than 'bitching'. What better way to engage directly with the strongest counter-arguments made by prominent critics on social media?
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
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
As I understand it kamski made a specific point, which is that Russia has a legitimate grievance that it was led to believe NATO would resist the natural and reasonable desires of post-Soviet states to join, and that this resistance didn't actually come about.
I haven't anywhere seen kamski make the utterly illogical leap (that Putin has made) that any legitimate grievance justified a brutal invasion of a sovereign nation.
Kamski is simply challenging the point that because this wasn't promised in a formal way we can deny any assurances were ever made. I don't honestly know the truth of the matter, but can see the futility in our defence being "noone said that!" There are plenty of better ways we can defend NATO expansion, not least national sovereignty.
My point was that his claim has been assessed by neutral experts (Chatham house) and judged a “myth” (they are a very polite organisation).
I’ve posted the link 2-3 times but he has never engaged on the argument, but just repeats his claim. It’s as if he doesn’t want to admit that he is wrong (not suggesting anything more nefarious than the general liberal-left tendency in Europe to blame ourselves for everything bad in the world)
OK, time for something serious for the Brains Trust.
A family member has suddenly gone enthusiastic for home prepped products (parallel to my chutney etc) - something to do with an extended illness and lots of free time.
The last time we met I was presented with various interesting frozen things, including Pressed Ox Tongue, Chicken Liver Pate, Red Cabbage something, and Ox Tongue Jelly (in cubes).
The first two are great. And Red Cabbage is fine, except it is frozen in a hunk which will risk monotony - there are four of them, and only one of me.
But how does one use Ox Tongue Jelly cubes, when many of them are more jelly than ox tongue?
I'm inclined to try it as an extra in light rice dishes, or with vegan risotto type things, or chopped up in a salad. Or even added to a soup.
Does anyone have experience of this?
Use the ox tongue jelly like stock. It should have a lot of concentrated flavour. Add it to any ragu or stew etc to deepen the flavour.
I tried it in a sandwich (did you ever have bread and dripping?), so I can confirm it has quite a lot of salt and beefy flavour in it.
That's a problem when it arrives as dozens of cubes in one container, frozen.
"I’m not here to walk hand in hand with President Zelensky. I’m fed up with him. He is constantly begging and extorting others for money. This has to STOP."
I would sooner that Truss had introduced the 'British' concept 'the Blob' to her US audience rather than adopting the US phrase 'Deep State', but I don't think that makes it too difficult to understand the analysis unless you're stupid.
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
When Niall Ferguson is the sane and centrist one in a conversation, and the other is one of the most powerful men in the world, shit has got baaaad…
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
'first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office'
Why does he think that? Serious question.
I assume he thinks Trump would have rung up Putin and talked him out of it.
But that raises the question: why would Vlad take a blind bit of notice? It can't be because he fears US military retaliation as surely the whole point of Vance's piece is that the US doesn't do military retaliation any more. Or is the suggestion that Trump could persuade Vlad to link arms and delivery a rendition of '.. all we are saying ... is give peace a chance ...' Hopelessly naïve if so.
"I’m not here to walk hand in hand with President Zelensky. I’m fed up with him. He is constantly begging and extorting others for money. This has to STOP."
I am not sure what you expect him to do? He is trying to lead his nation in a defensive war against a much, much, more powerful enemy. It seems like you people just expect him to know his place and to just roll over and surrender. I know what kind of leader I would want in charge of Britain should we ever be faced with such an existential threat again.
"I’m not here to walk hand in hand with President Zelensky. I’m fed up with him. He is constantly begging and extorting others for money. This has to STOP."
Fico is another piece of traitorous scum . If Slovakia and Hungary hate being in the EU why don’t they both fxck off and become a Russian vassal state .
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
So, Vance is spouting bollocks. That much is obvious. HIs stuff about European censorship offending "the sensibilities of most Americans" is lies, as we've previously discussed. But what does he think "offend[s] the sensibilities of most Americans" about European migration policy? The US has higher immigration than most of Europe.
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
No, but it is several steps better than flouncing.
I'll never flounce. One day I just won't be here and then that day will become a week, a month, a year, and still longer, until eventually all memory of me, and of everything I ever said, the betting calls, good and bad, the little jokes, good and bad, the bursts of whimsy, some pointless but many with an important message, is lost forever.
Like tears in rain..
Plenty of that in North Durham at the moment.
Just as I was about to post smugly that it was dry in Berwick, it absolutely pissed it down.
Very lucky I had just got back to the station and was under cover!
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
So, Vance is spouting bollocks. That much is obvious. HIs stuff about European censorship offending "the sensibilities of most Americans" is lies, as we've previously discussed. But what does he think "offend[s] the sensibilities of most Americans" about European migration policy? The US has higher immigration than most of Europe.
We can't discuss any of this without being banned, the whole scenario is absurd
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
'first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office'
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
So, Vance is spouting bollocks. That much is obvious. HIs stuff about European censorship offending "the sensibilities of most Americans" is lies, as we've previously discussed. But what does he think "offend[s] the sensibilities of most Americans" about European migration policy? The US has higher immigration than most of Europe.
Many Americans who are happy to see the US as a melting pot nevertheless don't want their homelands to lose their national character.
"I’m not here to walk hand in hand with President Zelensky. I’m fed up with him. He is constantly begging and extorting others for money. This has to STOP."
Fico is another piece of traitorous scum . If Slovakia and Hungary hate being in the EU why don’t they both fxck off and become a Russian vassal state .
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
So, Vance is spouting bollocks. That much is obvious. HIs stuff about European censorship offending "the sensibilities of most Americans" is lies, as we've previously discussed. But what does he think "offend[s] the sensibilities of most Americans" about European migration policy? The US has higher immigration than most of Europe.
I presume he's talking of the censorship of opposition voices in Russia, right? And the way that those who -say- produce documentaries about the corruption of the leadership get shipped off to prison camps where they sadly die.
Comments
A family member has suddenly gone enthusiastic for home prepped products (parallel to my chutney etc) - something to do with an extended illness and lots of free time.
The last time we met I was presented with various interesting frozen things, including Pressed Ox Tongue, Chicken Liver Pate, Red Cabbage something, and Ox Tongue Jelly (in cubes).
The first two are great. And Red Cabbage is fine, except it is frozen in a hunk which will risk monotony - there are four of them, and only one of me.
But how does one use Ox Tongue Jelly cubes, when many of them are more jelly than ox tongue?
I'm inclined to try it as an extra in light rice dishes, or with vegan risotto type things, or chopped up in a salad. Or even added to a soup.
Does anyone have experience of this?
Someone will say
“What happened to @Kinabalu”
Then someone else will say
“Dunno. Have you seen that new poll in Newent?”
And so the world moves on. The same applies to us all, of course
But I don't remember what that thing is anymore
Did I dream you? Or are you dreaming me now?
As your waking thoughts gradually take over
As all dreams are ultimately forgotten and lost"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfhasuWvipM
"Yes, you're a good boy, yes you are, let us pet your belly."
Better?
Existing rightwing political outfit will be taken over by a newly registered business called Reform 2025 Ltd
https://www.ft.com/content/527b7c74-3989-4723-85d1-81ac691b706a (£££)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9Ar_SisOTE
That to me is not compatible with a Maga type process. I think she is in conspiracy theory territory.
It’s more Golden Retriever.
“I’ve found this new thing. And it’s awesome. It’s the bestest thing in the Universe! and I have the best one! I will call it a T-A-I-L!”
I admit to being fairly impressed with how long she is sustaining the delusion. I would not like to be around her when cruel reality hits.
This links to the post from election maps that @bondegezou posted earlier.
If I could uninvent one thing from the 21st century, it would be twitter.
How about the US take a step back and realise that Europe has contributed shit loads so what if we decide we want a relative share of the minerals? Problem yes?
No, America must have the minerals.
The US are acting like a fucking organised crime group.
Re the red cabbage, that sounds odd. I do two things with red cabbage:
a) Pickle it using malt vinegar with coriander seeds, pepper corns and chillies
OR
b) Braise it for 3 hours chopped with onion and apple with a little dark sugar, sultanas mixed spice, grated nutmeg, smashed cloves, cinnamon and malt vinegar. Lovely with a roast, particularly pork.
Trump said he can't make the USA hockey game tonight against Canada -- he has a speech to the Republican Governors Association -- but said he'll "be calling in."
After Canadian fans booed the US national anthem and three fights broke out within seconds of puck drop Saturday night, Team USA's general manager said they'd welcome Trump at their rematch against Canada tonight in Boston.
The latest is from a Finnish MEP being threatened that if they don't support Ukranian surrender then the US pulls out.
https://bsky.app/profile/akihheikkinen.bsky.social/post/3likmu4ldz226
We can't trust the US anyway, so should stay loyal to Ukraine, after all fighting without them would be a lot tougher than fighting with them on our side.
1. Treasonable or
2. Mad
or is this amateur psychiatry attempt based on shit all as usual?
The head of CPAC Hungry, Miklós Szánthó, was also present at Wednesday’s “international summit” and reminded the audience that political strategist Steve Bannon had once described Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán as “Trump before Trump”.
We're cutting off funding oh and sign this deal - what the hell incentive is there for Ukraine to sign the deal?
We'll increase funding if you sign this deal - that could potentially have been tempting.
Kind of the whole point of taking back control.
https://x.com/jdvance/status/1892569791140946073
This is moralistic garbage, which is unfortunately the rhetorical currency of the globalists because they have nothing else to say.
For three years, President Trump and I have made two simple arguments: first, the war wouldn't have started if President Trump was in office; second, that neither Europe, nor the Biden administration, nor the Ukrainians had any pathway to victory. This was true three years ago, it was true two years ago, it was true last year, and it is true today.
And for three years, the concerns of people who were obviously right were ignored. What is Niall's actual plan for Ukraine? Another aid package? Is he aware of the reality on the ground, of the numerical advantage of the Russians, of the depleted stock of the Europeans or their even more depleted industrial base?
Instead, he quotes from a book about George HW Bush from a different historical period and a different conflict. That's another currency of these people: reliance on irrelevant history.
President Trump is dealing with reality, which means dealing with facts. And here are some facts:
Number one, while our Western European allies' security has benefitted greatly from the generosity of the United States, they pursue domestic policies (on migration and censorship) that offend the sensibilities of most Americans and defense policies that assume continued over-reliance.
Number two, Russians have a massive numerical advantage in manpower and weapons in Ukraine, and that advantage will persist regardless of further Western aid packages. Again, the aid is *currently* flowing.
Number three, the United States retains substantial leverage over both parties to the conflict.
Number four, ending the conflict requires talking to the people involved in starting it and maintaining it.
Number five, the conflict has placed--and continues to place--stress on tools of American statecraft, from military stockpiles to sanctions (and so much else). We believe the continued conflict is bad for Russia, bad for Ukraine, and bad for Europe. But most importantly, it is bad for the United States.
Given the above facts, we must pursue peace, and we must pursue it now. President Trump ran on this, he won on this, and he is right about this. It is lazy, ahistorical nonsense to attack as "appeasement" every acknowledgment that America's interest must account for the realities of the conflict.
That interest--not moralisms or historical illiteracy--will guide President Trump's policy in the weeks to come.
And thank God for that.
It was one of the insights from my last ayahuasca trip. It is all pointless, but in a divine way
No one dies, but no one is ever remembered
- This is a stat I track and in my observation I think that has been the trend. Bluntly, there's been a continuous self-sustaining complaining noise for at least a decade. As so often in rental debates, the actuality is irrelevant as the debate is overwhelmingly driven by prejudice.
- In case anyone has not looked properly, those numbers are in real terms as noted on the graphic.
- There have also been changes such as setting it to the 30%-ile in the market for the number of bedrooms the claimant is entitled to - ie if you get two beds such as parents and 2 children under 10 you get the 2 bed rate regardless of the value of the house.
- UC is stricter than HB for eligibility, so that will have squeezed as people are moved over.
- This benefit rate is also only uprated every several years, so runs behind by a couple of years of rent increases.
- In general PRS rents rise more slowly than inflation, so over time that will have reduced the comparator.
- One on the accounting is that I'm not sure how the Benefits Cap affects this benefit, and how if it applies what is reduced. In London the cap is ~£23k per annum, which could be nearly all swallowed up by rent on even a modest house.
(Even in Enfield, the 3 bedroom house rate is £20k+ at the 30th %-ile rent. That will cause a *lot* of people to have some benefit capped, which if it is LHA will affect this number.)
The benefits cap has been cut by 15% in real terms since 2016 - CPI is +35%, benefits cap is +20% from 2016 to now. A lot more people are likely to have been affected given that salami slicing.
Why does he think that? Serious question.
He is entirely right about migration and free speech, soon there will not be a Europe worth defending from a US perspective. This is completely correct
It’s just a shame he is VEEP to this mad baboon Trump
Note that at least twice he refers to those who started the Russia/Ukraine war without mentioning who it might have been.
And there is not a single suggestion that Putin/Russia has done a single blameworthy act.
Nor is there, apparently, any thought that 600,000,000 Europeans + 300,000,000 Americans might be a match for 145,000,000 Russians.
Then reversed.
I never said there's a shred of justification for the resentment. But daft to pretend it doesn't exist.
However, at the time, it was entirely true. First and only moment in my life I’ve felt kinda unsteady on my feet as I encountered someone CLEARLY smarter, sharper and better read
It occurs to me now that this must be what everyone feels when they meet me. I shall strive to be kinder
But that's the second screed following criticism from someone on the British non-MAGA right.
Three, and it will start to look Pavlovan.
I’ve posted the link 2-3 times but he has never engaged on the argument, but just repeats his claim. It’s as if he doesn’t want to admit that he is wrong (not suggesting anything more nefarious than the general liberal-left tendency in Europe to blame ourselves for everything bad in the world)
That's a problem when it arrives as dozens of cubes in one container, frozen.
Slovakia PM Robert Fico goes NUCLEAR on Zelensky:
"I’m not here to walk hand in hand with President Zelensky. I’m fed up with him. He is constantly begging and extorting others for money. This has to STOP."
Very lucky I had just got back to the station and was under cover!
I can see this being a big story next week as the new bills hit the doormat
(That’s a serious answer, btw.)
That's the censorship he's referring to, right?