More importantly, who was the great hairy twat of a journalist that queried Zelensky's attire?
"Why aren't you wearing a suit"?
I mean, really? Really? Zelensky is a war leader, they often wear combats and the like to express that status, and fair play, it's not like Zelensky is lying. He was in Kyiv as the bombs fell and as the Russians tried to hunt him down and kill him
It's that ignorant and insulting question that introduces the first discordant note and changes the mood, and you can see how it riles Zelensky (and I don't blame him) - he mentions it several times later (before the Goodfellas out-take)
Suits are stupid anyway. Expensive, high maintenance, usually uncomfortable and not even particularly pleasing aethestically. I've never understood the rule that says the more impractical your clothes, the better the work you do or the more respect you show people you meet.
And as for ties, if they didn't exist, what madman would think of inventing them?
On this, as on much else, I stand with Zelensky and Ukraine.
Say what you like about Starmer, he wears a suit and his shirts look crisply pressed.
More importantly, who was the great hairy twat of a journalist that queried Zelensky's attire?
"Why aren't you wearing a suit"?
I mean, really? Really? Zelensky is a war leader, they often wear combats and the like to express that status, and fair play, it's not like Zelensky is lying. He was in Kyiv as the bombs fell and as the Russians tried to hunt him down and kill him
It's that ignorant and insulting question that introduces the first discordant note and changes the mood, and you can see how it riles Zelensky (and I don't blame him) - he mentions it several times later (before the Goodfellas out-take)
Conversely, Zelensky was criticised before for addressing Congress without wearing a suit. Everyone else adores the sweatshirt because it's war leader cosplay, in America some don't. A wise choice might have been to develop a sort of general's version of it with a shirt and tie underneath, elbow patch jumper on top, and some decorations and gold braid here and there.
Or he could have come in full white tie, and silvery top hat, just like Fred Astaire
That would have been brilliantly funny, and might have saved NATO
There may be trouble ahead But while there’s moonlight And music and love and romance Let’s face the music and dance
Poignant poetry in the face of impending doom as it turned out.
More importantly, who was the great hairy twat of a journalist that queried Zelensky's attire?
"Why aren't you wearing a suit"?
I mean, really? Really? Zelensky is a war leader, they often wear combats and the like to express that status, and fair play, it's not like Zelensky is lying. He was in Kyiv as the bombs fell and as the Russians tried to hunt him down and kill him
It's that ignorant and insulting question that introduces the first discordant note and changes the mood, and you can see how it riles Zelensky (and I don't blame him) - he mentions it several times later (before the Goodfellas out-take)
Conversely, Zelensky was criticised before for addressing Congress without wearing a suit. Everyone else adores the sweatshirt because it's war leader cosplay, in America some don't. A wise choice might have been to develop a sort of general's version of it with a shirt and tie underneath, elbow patch jumper on top, and some decorations and gold braid here and there.
An argument that might have a bit more strength if, just this last week, Musky Baby had not attended cabinet dressed like a hobo.
There was zero criticism of him from the same people who are apparently offended by Zelenskyy's attire.
Because it's ridiculous criticism; designed solely to attack Z.
Power, even ownership.
Trump and Vance and MAGA either think they own Zelensky, or that they should. So they can make remarks about what he's wearing.
They know, however unconsciously, that Musk owns them. So he can do whatever he damn well likes.
If you are punched from above, the temptation is always to punch down. Some even see it as nature's way. More curiously, some people near the top of the pecking order like the occasional punch from even higher. Maybe it's validating all the punches they thrown down.
More importantly, who was the great hairy twat of a journalist that queried Zelensky's attire?
"Why aren't you wearing a suit"?
I mean, really? Really? Zelensky is a war leader, they often wear combats and the like to express that status, and fair play, it's not like Zelensky is lying. He was in Kyiv as the bombs fell and as the Russians tried to hunt him down and kill him
It's that ignorant and insulting question that introduces the first discordant note and changes the mood, and you can see how it riles Zelensky (and I don't blame him) - he mentions it several times later (before the Goodfellas out-take)
Suits are stupid anyway. Expensive, high maintenance, usually uncomfortable and not even particularly pleasing aethestically. I've never understood the rule that says the more impractical your clothes, the better the work you do or the more respect you show people you meet.
And as for ties, if they didn't exist, what madman would think of inventing them?
On this, as on much else, I stand with Zelensky and Ukraine.
Say what you like about Starmer, he wears a suit and his shirts look crisply pressed.
Not sure that's the best response to what had just been written about practicalities.
So Starmer cares about aesthetics but does nothing about what's actually practically important?
More importantly, who was the great hairy twat of a journalist that queried Zelensky's attire?
"Why aren't you wearing a suit"?
I mean, really? Really? Zelensky is a war leader, they often wear combats and the like to express that status, and fair play, it's not like Zelensky is lying. He was in Kyiv as the bombs fell and as the Russians tried to hunt him down and kill him
It's that ignorant and insulting question that introduces the first discordant note and changes the mood, and you can see how it riles Zelensky (and I don't blame him) - he mentions it several times later (before the Goodfellas out-take)
Conversely, Zelensky was criticised before for addressing Congress without wearing a suit. Everyone else adores the sweatshirt because it's war leader cosplay, in America some don't. A wise choice might have been to develop a sort of general's version of it with a shirt and tie underneath, elbow patch jumper on top, and some decorations and gold braid here and there.
Z's English let him down a bit in that exchange. костюм/costume is a false friend and means 'suit' in Russian. So referring to they guy's suit as a 'costume' was inadvertently narky.
The divorced dad at B&Q look is his brand, and he understands the power of that.
I've watched the full thing now. Proper fucking LOL.
Trump’s plan is to rehabilitate Russia, to make it a partner of the USA, and to try and remake the world. Just the other day, Trump had Secretary of Defense Hegseth remove Russia as a target of US cyber planning. Russia has been one of the greatest cyber threats to US freedom and democracy for years—and the US is basically offering them free rein
Trump, and the USA while he runs it, is with Putin and needs to be treated as a hostile power to European freedom and democracy.
Those people that said a European army was a bad reason to remain are looking very stupid today.
A European army is a bad idea.
Military action can’t be driven by consensus
It needs to be a smaller group of key partners IHT an intergovernmental structure
Couldn't Europe form an army that isn't driven by consensus? The US army doesn't require the consent of all 50 states before it does stuff. It would be possible, albeit still difficult to imagine at this point, for Europe to have an army that doesn't require unanimity among member states before acting but instead has a single commander in chief and is authorised to go to war based on a majority vote among member state representatives (the latter would have to be skipped in certain emergencies).
Those people that said a European army was a bad reason to remain are looking very stupid today.
A European army is a bad idea.
Military action can’t be driven by consensus
It needs to be a smaller group of key partners IHT an intergovernmental structure
Couldn't Europe form an army that isn't driven by consensus? The US army doesn't require the consent of all 50 states before it does stuff. It would be possible, albeit still difficult to imagine at this point, for Europe to have an army that doesn't require unanimity among member states before acting but instead has a single commander in chief and is authorised to go to war based on a majority vote among member state representatives (the latter would have to be skipped in certain emergencies).
And if that single European army is led by a Trump, or an Orban, what then?
Ash Sarkar and Aaron Bastani came up last night. For those interested in Sarkar's views, this is an interesting listen. For the avoidance of doubt I'm not a fan of Sarkar particularly, but I think she adds interesting views to the debate that aren't always heard elsewhere: https://pca.st/episode/8031d8ee-548b-4566-99d4-7e97b84cc303 (about 45 mins)
TL;DL - amongst other things (about 35 mins in) she calls out the tendency of those with privilege to defer always to the most marginalised person in the room, and fragility on the left. In that respect, at least, I think she has an excellent point and makes it with credibility.
Those people that said a European army was a bad reason to remain are looking very stupid today.
A European army is a bad idea.
Military action can’t be driven by consensus
It needs to be a smaller group of key partners IHT an intergovernmental structure
Couldn't Europe form an army that isn't driven by consensus? The US army doesn't require the consent of all 50 states before it does stuff. It would be possible, albeit still difficult to imagine at this point, for Europe to have an army that doesn't require unanimity among member states before acting but instead has a single commander in chief and is authorised to go to war based on a majority vote among member state representatives (the latter would have to be skipped in certain emergencies).
That would be very difficult without Europe becoming a superstate. Which may be where we get to in all this, but I hope not.
Those people that said a European army was a bad reason to remain are looking very stupid today.
A European army is a bad idea.
Military action can’t be driven by consensus
It needs to be a smaller group of key partners IHT an intergovernmental structure
Couldn't Europe form an army that isn't driven by consensus? The US army doesn't require the consent of all 50 states before it does stuff. It would be possible, albeit still difficult to imagine at this point, for Europe to have an army that doesn't require unanimity among member states before acting but instead has a single commander in chief and is authorised to go to war based on a majority vote among member state representatives (the latter would have to be skipped in certain emergencies).
The EU can't make an unwilling country go to war any more than NATO could. Any sovereign country could withdraw from the command structure at any time.
Given that the name NATO is heavily associated with the discredited notion of Atlanticism, I'd have thought that any new organisation should have a completely different name. Perhaps EMMA (European Mutual defence & Military cooperation Association).
Nope because we still need Canada involved or we leave a massive hole in our Northern defences.
Ash Sarkar and Aaron Bastani came up last night. For those interested in Sarkar's views, this is an interesting listen. For the avoidance of doubt I'm not a fan of Sarkar particularly, but I think she adds interesting views to the debate that aren't always heard elsewhere: https://pca.st/episode/8031d8ee-548b-4566-99d4-7e97b84cc303 (about 45 mins)
TL;DL - amongst other things (about 35 mins in) she calls out the tendency of those with privilege to defer always to the most marginalised person in the room, and fragility on the left. In that respect, at least, I think she has an excellent point and makes it with credibility.
Those people that said a European army was a bad reason to remain are looking very stupid today.
A European army is a bad idea.
Military action can’t be driven by consensus
It needs to be a smaller group of key partners IHT an intergovernmental structure
As the LibDem MP for Tunbridge Wells (an army veteran) is proposing, what is needed is a European defence framework not dissimilar to NATO. Nations retain their own armed forces - as we do now, within NATO - but with a much greater degree of standarisation and co-ordination of command and control.
Those people that said a European army was a bad reason to remain are looking very stupid today.
A European army is a bad idea.
Military action can’t be driven by consensus
It needs to be a smaller group of key partners IHT an intergovernmental structure
Couldn't Europe form an army that isn't driven by consensus? The US army doesn't require the consent of all 50 states before it does stuff. It would be possible, albeit still difficult to imagine at this point, for Europe to have an army that doesn't require unanimity among member states before acting but instead has a single commander in chief and is authorised to go to war based on a majority vote among member state representatives (the latter would have to be skipped in certain emergencies).
And if that single European army is led by a Trump, or an Orban, what then?
The current Supreme Allied Commander, EUROPE is Gen. Cavoli. A US 4* who is only two links in the chain of command (CSA, CJCS) from Trump.
More importantly, who was the great hairy twat of a journalist that queried Zelensky's attire?
"Why aren't you wearing a suit"?
I mean, really? Really? Zelensky is a war leader, they often wear combats and the like to express that status, and fair play, it's not like Zelensky is lying. He was in Kyiv as the bombs fell and as the Russians tried to hunt him down and kill him
It's that ignorant and insulting question that introduces the first discordant note and changes the mood, and you can see how it riles Zelensky (and I don't blame him) - he mentions it several times later (before the Goodfellas out-take)
Conversely, Zelensky was criticised before for addressing Congress without wearing a suit. Everyone else adores the sweatshirt because it's war leader cosplay, in America some don't. A wise choice might have been to develop a sort of general's version of it with a shirt and tie underneath, elbow patch jumper on top, and some decorations and gold braid here and there.
An argument that might have a bit more strength if, just this last week, Musky Baby had not attended cabinet dressed like a hobo.
There was zero criticism of him from the same people who are apparently offended by Zelenskyy's attire.
Because it's ridiculous criticism; designed solely to attack Z.
Exactly. If we were to criticise Americans for their dress sense, we'd be here all day. People who go on a European tour in their pyjamas are in no position to throw stones.
More importantly, who was the great hairy twat of a journalist that queried Zelensky's attire?
"Why aren't you wearing a suit"?
I mean, really? Really? Zelensky is a war leader, they often wear combats and the like to express that status, and fair play, it's not like Zelensky is lying. He was in Kyiv as the bombs fell and as the Russians tried to hunt him down and kill him
It's that ignorant and insulting question that introduces the first discordant note and changes the mood, and you can see how it riles Zelensky (and I don't blame him) - he mentions it several times later (before the Goodfellas out-take)
Suits are stupid anyway. Expensive, high maintenance, usually uncomfortable and not even particularly pleasing aethestically. I've never understood the rule that says the more impractical your clothes, the better the work you do or the more respect you show people you meet.
And as for ties, if they didn't exist, what madman would think of inventing them?
On this, as on much else, I stand with Zelensky and Ukraine.
Say what you like about Starmer, he wears a suit and his shirts look crisply pressed.
Not sure that's the best response to what had just been written about practicalities.
So Starmer cares about aesthetics but does nothing about what's actually practically important?
Are you saying Trump and Vance have the wrong priorities?
Look at almost any leader from Trump to Xi to Putin, to almost everyone, male or female – they wear suits because that's what leaders do and your own private aesthetic is neither here nor there.
Kinzinger: There’s a reason that every Trump cabinet member has had to tweet how strong he was today. Because they got the memo from The White House that they better come out and support Trump because this is a really bad day for them and they know it
Was last night a tipping point? Possibly for many - I see the powerful comments of Robert Jenrick as a hopeful sign that a section of the right sees it that way now, but there's still work to be done. But supporting and defending Trump (and Vance) is rapidly becoming like supporting Putin and their invasion of Russia: a point of view that, if not quite yet, will shortly be seen as actively betraying our country. I see GB News has decided that it was all Zelenskyy's fault. I presume that that wll be Reform's line as well, as their tailwagging devotion to Trump continues.
Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?
Those people that said a European army was a bad reason to remain are looking very stupid today.
Nope. It was a bad idea then and it is a bad idea now. At least in the form it was suggested which was an EU army. As I pointed out yesterday it would exclude some of our most important allies, would be utterly ineffective as it would include countries like Hungary who are openly favourable to Russia and would be riven with disagreement about what actions it should or should not take.
Far more effective to reconfigure either the JEF or NATO without the obvious trouble makers.
Those people that said a European army was a bad reason to remain are looking very stupid today.
A European army is a bad idea.
Military action can’t be driven by consensus
It needs to be a smaller group of key partners IHT an intergovernmental structure
Couldn't Europe form an army that isn't driven by consensus? The US army doesn't require the consent of all 50 states before it does stuff. It would be possible, albeit still difficult to imagine at this point, for Europe to have an army that doesn't require unanimity among member states before acting but instead has a single commander in chief and is authorised to go to war based on a majority vote among member state representatives (the latter would have to be skipped in certain emergencies).
Ash Sarkar and Aaron Bastani came up last night. For those interested in Sarkar's views, this is an interesting listen. For the avoidance of doubt I'm not a fan of Sarkar particularly, but I think she adds interesting views to the debate that aren't always heard elsewhere: https://pca.st/episode/8031d8ee-548b-4566-99d4-7e97b84cc303 (about 45 mins)
TL;DL - amongst other things (about 35 mins in) she calls out the tendency of those with privilege to defer always to the most marginalised person in the room, and fragility on the left. In that respect, at least, I think she has an excellent point and makes it with credibility.
Novara are grifters. Surely you can see this.
In what way? Not a loaded question - I only know Sarkar through the Moral Maze and New Economics Foundation.
Was last night a tipping point? Possibly for many - I see the powerful comments of Robert Jenrick as a hopeful sign that a section of the right sees it that way now, but there's still work to be done. But supporting and defending Trump (and Vance) is rapidly becoming like supporting Putin and their invasion of Russia: a point of view that, if not quite yet, will shortly be seen as actively betraying our country. I see GB News has decided that it was all Zelenskyy's fault. I presume that that wll be Reform's line as well, as their tailwagging devotion to Trump continues.
Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?
They are absolutely part of, and on the side of, global gangsterism. Which is, I think, how we should think about it from a "geopolitical alignment" point of view. It's got nothing to do with left/right or east/west.
Kinzinger: There’s a reason that every Trump cabinet member has had to tweet how strong he was today. Because they got the memo from The White House that they better come out and support Trump because this is a really bad day for them and they know it
OT. It confused me seeing Kinzinger as I read it initially as Kissinger. There is a man who would be turning in his grave.
Musing on this over my breakfast and a copy of the Racing Post in the Barking Road this morning....
The problem remains what it has been since Putin sent his troops into Ukraine - how does this end and what does that ending look like?
There are three obvious options - a Russian victory meaning either the conquest of Ukraine or the replacement of Zelenskyy by a puppet Russian Government. Option two, the political collapse of the Putin administration and the withdrawal of all Russian forces from Ukrainian territory.
Option three is the negotiated settlement and that probably means a peacekeeping force sent in between the two armies so we get a variation on Korea or Cyprus with a semi-permanent UN presence on the borders of Donetsk and Luhansk while the rest of Ukraine remains under Kyiv's control.
Trump. presumably, wants to be the man who ended the bloodshed - the peacemaker, the global statesman which plays to his vanity. Now, ending the bloodshed is a noble enough sentiment but it can't be peace at any price - I suspect the minerals deal was the "sweetener" to get Zelenskyy to play his role in the dance but Zelenskyy won't last five minutes at home if he gives up 20% of Ukraine.
The danger now is not Trump or Putin but us, or rather, Europe. The rules of engagement haven't changed - we cannot have British troops actively fighting alongside the Ukrainians because one engagement with the Russians and we are in a very bad place (potentially). Fighting the war by proxy (sending weapons, providing modern equipment) is one thing and we can step up to help Ukraine keep going if America runs away but we cannot put boots on the ground until there is some form of ceasefire or armistice in place.
How do we get to that point from here? Truth to tell, I don't know - Putin thinks he can grind Ukraine into submission despite his enormous losses and there's some evidence that strategy is working but Zelenskyy, if he can call on the combined materiel assistance of Europe, has a chance of achieving a stalemate which might encourage Putin to seek terms. I think Xi, who could have ended this conflict on day one, has a role to play and it may be the emerging Sino-European rapprochement will enable Xi to put significant pressure on Putin to call it quits.
I watched the Russian reaction on NTV (owned by Gazprom so you know it's balanced and fair) this morning. They had a special on it which was titled simply, Зе Энд. A clunky and slightly meme-y transliteration of the English words, The End.
More importantly, who was the great hairy twat of a journalist that queried Zelensky's attire?
"Why aren't you wearing a suit"?
I mean, really? Really? Zelensky is a war leader, they often wear combats and the like to express that status, and fair play, it's not like Zelensky is lying. He was in Kyiv as the bombs fell and as the Russians tried to hunt him down and kill him
It's that ignorant and insulting question that introduces the first discordant note and changes the mood, and you can see how it riles Zelensky (and I don't blame him) - he mentions it several times later (before the Goodfellas out-take)
Suits are stupid anyway. Expensive, high maintenance, usually uncomfortable and not even particularly pleasing aethestically. I've never understood the rule that says the more impractical your clothes, the better the work you do or the more respect you show people you meet.
And as for ties, if they didn't exist, what madman would think of inventing them?
On this, as on much else, I stand with Zelensky and Ukraine.
I’ve read some bollocks on PB, I’ve typed a lot of it myself but this is a new bottom. Anyone who thinks suits aren’t aesthetically pleasing must either be fat and misshaped or a wearer terrible cheap suits.
As for ties, they are vital for being able to easily identify if someone is worth talking to depending on their colours and stripe combos, and being able to spot spivs with bad taste across a room.
Was last night a tipping point? Possibly for many - I see the powerful comments of Robert Jenrick as a hopeful sign that a section of the right sees it that way now, but there's still work to be done. But supporting and defending Trump (and Vance) is rapidly becoming like supporting Putin and their invasion of Russia: a point of view that, if not quite yet, will shortly be seen as actively betraying our country. I see GB News has decided that it was all Zelenskyy's fault. I presume that that wll be Reform's line as well, as their tailwagging devotion to Trump continues.
Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?
The policy stances of the right of British politics have always traded on both genuine and faux patriotism - this now presents the Tories with a wedge issue to try and undermine Reform
More importantly, who was the great hairy twat of a journalist that queried Zelensky's attire?
"Why aren't you wearing a suit"?
I mean, really? Really? Zelensky is a war leader, they often wear combats and the like to express that status, and fair play, it's not like Zelensky is lying. He was in Kyiv as the bombs fell and as the Russians tried to hunt him down and kill him
It's that ignorant and insulting question that introduces the first discordant note and changes the mood, and you can see how it riles Zelensky (and I don't blame him) - he mentions it several times later (before the Goodfellas out-take)
Conversely, Zelensky was criticised before for addressing Congress without wearing a suit. Everyone else adores the sweatshirt because it's war leader cosplay, in America some don't. A wise choice might have been to develop a sort of general's version of it with a shirt and tie underneath, elbow patch jumper on top, and some decorations and gold braid here and there.
An argument that might have a bit more strength if, just this last week, Musky Baby had not attended cabinet dressed like a hobo.
There was zero criticism of him from the same people who are apparently offended by Zelenskyy's attire.
Because it's ridiculous criticism; designed solely to attack Z.
The criticism from Musk was 100% hypocritical guff, I agree. He himself is a foreigner and was dressed scruffily in the Oval Office. But the criticism yesterday, whilst petty and ephemeral, clearly played into some real notions of American pride in the trappings and institutions of their Government, or we wouldn't have had complaints about it last time out.
Starner should invite Trump and Zekensky to a meeting in London.
For what? The USA is not going to help Ukraine. They are making it very clear even if we don't want to hear it. We have to help them ourselves as best we can and hope we can outlast the insanity over the pond.
Trump is at the end of the day a white nationalist as is Putin and has little interest in continuing to fund liberal Zelensky in his conflict with Russia.
He is more interested in taking on wokeism and trade wars with China, the EU and Canada and Mexico and deporting immigrants to 'make America great again'
Those people that said a European army was a bad reason to remain are looking very stupid today.
A European army is a bad idea.
Military action can’t be driven by consensus
It needs to be a smaller group of key partners IHT an intergovernmental structure
As the LibDem MP for Tunbridge Wells (an army veteran) is proposing, what is needed is a European defence framework not dissimilar to NATO. Nations retain their own armed forces - as we do now, within NATO - but with a much greater degree of standarisation and co-ordination of command and control.
As I say though it cannot be solely EU or even just European. It needs the flanks to be protected - which means Canada, Iceland and Turkey for a start.
The premise doesn't even hold up, like the silly 'suit' criticism (yes, it's about projecting an image, what a shocker), since even if Zelensky messed up, the response was entirely disproportionate.
The trivial complaints to justify very non-trivial reactions are extremely telling and predictable. It is a shame that it works on a majority of americans.
Struck me Trump is now so weak he had to have Captain Guyliner there to double-team Zelensky.
Weak and cowardly. That's Trump and anyone who demanded his re-election (like, um, Jenrick) need to explain their actions as well as condemning his. Otherwise it just looks like they are idiots (Jenrick and Badenoch) or bought and paid for (Farage).
Starner should invite Trump and Zekensky to a meeting in London.
For what? The USA is not going to help Ukraine. They are making it very clear even if we don't want to hear it. We have to help them ourselves as best we can and hope we can outlast the insanity over the pond.
PS. Following the link to Zelensky's 'yachts' which gained currency with Bannan and Vance in Washington it was later found to be a complete invention started in Moscow. Washington under this administration is a cesspit and the sooner the UK starts treating it like this the better.
Starner should invite Trump and Zekensky to a meeting in London.
For what? The USA is not going to help Ukraine. They are making it very clear even if we don't want to hear it. We have to help them ourselves as best we can and hope we can outlast the insanity over the pond.
To give Trump enough rope...
He is (effectively) not accountable to anyone. Just as Kim Jong Un can proclaim whatever he likes, then change his mind back and forth without dissent or murmur, so can Trump.
Those people that said a European army was a bad reason to remain are looking very stupid today.
A European army is a bad idea.
Military action can’t be driven by consensus
It needs to be a smaller group of key partners IHT an intergovernmental structure
As the LibDem MP for Tunbridge Wells (an army veteran) is proposing, what is needed is a European defence framework not dissimilar to NATO. Nations retain their own armed forces - as we do now, within NATO - but with a much greater degree of standarisation and co-ordination of command and control.
As I say though it cannot be solely EU or even just European. It needs the flanks to be protected - which means Canada, Iceland and Turkey for a start.
Well, apart from Canada they're European. And maybe HM could transfer the Lordship of Man or the Duchy of Normandy to the Crown in Right of Canada.
Starner should invite Trump and Zekensky to a meeting in London.
For what? The USA is not going to help Ukraine. They are making it very clear even if we don't want to hear it. We have to help them ourselves as best we can and hope we can outlast the insanity over the pond.
But you have to exhaust all options first, and also try to simultaneously Britain's role and standing, in the process, if you're Starmer.
Cold, calculating, pragmatic, and accepting of many evils of the world, sure. But 'realpolitik' thesedays seems to be used as a shorthand for 'never push back against anything' (not even verbally in fact, since proponents attack language escalation too).
Struck me Trump is now so weak he had to have Captain Guyliner there to double-team Zelensky.
Weak and cowardly. That's Trump and anyone who demanded his re-election (like, um, Jenrick) need to explain their actions as well as condemning his. Otherwise it just looks like they are idiots (Jenrick and Badenoch) or bought and paid for (Farage).
There’s no point in demanding people apologise for their past misjudgements.
Badenoch, Jenrick and other leading Tories were strong last night in support of Ukraine and Zelensky. That’s what matters - don’t make it harder for them to do the right thing
Those people that said a European army was a bad reason to remain are looking very stupid today.
A European army is a bad idea.
Military action can’t be driven by consensus
It needs to be a smaller group of key partners IHT an intergovernmental structure
As the LibDem MP for Tunbridge Wells (an army veteran) is proposing, what is needed is a European defence framework not dissimilar to NATO. Nations retain their own armed forces - as we do now, within NATO - but with a much greater degree of standarisation and co-ordination of command and control.
As I say though it cannot be solely EU or even just European. It needs the flanks to be protected - which means Canada, Iceland and Turkey for a start.
The trouble with doing that is that it effectively forces the US out of NATO. Better to work on an EU+UK basis.
More importantly, who was the great hairy twat of a journalist that queried Zelensky's attire?
"Why aren't you wearing a suit"?
I mean, really? Really? Zelensky is a war leader, they often wear combats and the like to express that status, and fair play, it's not like Zelensky is lying. He was in Kyiv as the bombs fell and as the Russians tried to hunt him down and kill him
It's that ignorant and insulting question that introduces the first discordant note and changes the mood, and you can see how it riles Zelensky (and I don't blame him) - he mentions it several times later (before the Goodfellas out-take)
Conversely, Zelensky was criticised before for addressing Congress without wearing a suit. Everyone else adores the sweatshirt because it's war leader cosplay, in America some don't. A wise choice might have been to develop a sort of general's version of it with a shirt and tie underneath, elbow patch jumper on top, and some decorations and gold braid here and there.
Z's English let him down a bit in that exchange. костюм/costume is a false friend and means 'suit' in Russian. So referring to they guy's suit as a 'costume' was inadvertently narky.
The divorced dad at B&Q look is his brand, and he understands the power of that.
I've watched the full thing now. Proper fucking LOL.
I'm not watching it. I have an irrational loathing of socially awkward scenarios - I would prefer watching blood and guts (and I hate watching blood and guts). I am relying on the written word.
Ash Sarkar and Aaron Bastani came up last night. For those interested in Sarkar's views, this is an interesting listen. For the avoidance of doubt I'm not a fan of Sarkar particularly, but I think she adds interesting views to the debate that aren't always heard elsewhere: https://pca.st/episode/8031d8ee-548b-4566-99d4-7e97b84cc303 (about 45 mins)
TL;DL - amongst other things (about 35 mins in) she calls out the tendency of those with privilege to defer always to the most marginalised person in the room, and fragility on the left. In that respect, at least, I think she has an excellent point and makes it with credibility.
She’s plugging her new book which has received mixed reviews
Some think she’s seen the way the wind is blowing and moved, others think she’s moving on from previous views. A sinner repenteth.
The story about Eco loon Roger Hallam addressing a bunch of lefties is interesting and seems to have made her genuinely think.
Nothing to see here, especially if you are not looking for it.
All the more reason to break away from Five Eyes. The US simply can no longer be trsuted to be a secure ally with whom we can share intelligence.
One imagines most of the intelligence is gathered by American satellites and spy planes and ships. We can complement but not compete.
What little knowledge I have is that this is not really the case, and is why Five Eyes exists following the intelligence failures in the 1990s where the US became dependent on satellites which turned out to be worth bugger all for what was needed.
OT I’ve had a bizarre double of being abused for being “English” two nights in a row. Thursday night I was informed that a woman I had been introduced me hates me because I’m “so English”, very beautiful welsh woman who could have chosen many reasons to dislike me but being “so English” was a new one.
Then last night a Scottish landlady of a bar had a rant at me for being English. Very bizarre and unprovoked.
The funny thing is that I’m not English and they are interlopers here so should probably fuck off home if they don’t like people who sound English.
Hands up if you are old enough to recall PB Johnsonians explaining what an embarrassment Starmer was to the UK because he was not invited to Trump's inauguration whilst a hat full of very senior Tories and Reformers flew to Washington to kiss Trump's ring in those dim, distant and heady days prior to January 20th 2025.
Last time I'll plug this today. Also, just checked and the odds are still there for Piastri:
F1 Testing, including some car design news, Monaco pit stop news, and Verstappen to Aston Martin rumour, plus how I think things stand. Luckily, most (not all) of my early predictions are looking reasonable.
Important note: the odds have already shifted. Piastri's out to 13 for the title at Ladbrokes, 14 with boost, which is too long given he can be backed each way at a fifth the odds for top 3. He can also be hedged at 12 on Betfair.
Comments
Nigel Farage MP
@Nigel_Farage
The spat in the White House last night is regrettable and will make Putin feel like the winner.
But this is not the end of the story, far from it.
A peace deal is essential and Ukraine needs the right security guarantees.
But this is not the end of the story, far from it.
A peace deal is essential and Ukraine needs the right security guarantees.
https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1895780509692862623
Has Farage ever met Zelensky or visited Ukraine in open support for them ?
Have replied on another post
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5137257#Comment_5137257
Discuss.
Incidentally any conversation on next England captain will have to include Zak Crawley. Not because he's any good but because he's a mate of Rob Key.
But while there’s moonlight
And music and love and romance
Let’s face the music and dance
Poignant poetry in the face of impending doom as it turned out.
Be less crudely blatant about things.
He's made it impossible to deny that there is a problem and that Europe needs to change.
Which is even more on point.
Look forward to seeing Vance shout at Netanyahu that he has to be grateful and stop begging for money
Trump and Vance and MAGA either think they own Zelensky, or that they should. So they can make remarks about what he's wearing.
They know, however unconsciously, that Musk owns them. So he can do whatever he damn well likes.
If you are punched from above, the temptation is always to punch down. Some even see it as nature's way. More curiously, some people near the top of the pecking order like the occasional punch from even higher. Maybe it's validating all the punches they thrown down.
So Starmer cares about aesthetics but does nothing about what's actually practically important?
The divorced dad at B&Q look is his brand, and he understands the power of that.
I've watched the full thing now. Proper fucking LOL.
Trump, and the USA while he runs it, is with Putin and needs to be treated as a hostile power to European freedom and democracy.
https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/just-say-thank-you-and-shut-up
Appoint a new captain and start again with a blank sheet of paper.
Maharaj to Livingstone, OUT
Dreadful batting.
If Donald Trump was a Russian agent he would've threaten to nuke Ukraine.
I suppose he hasn't, but that doesn't mean he isn't a Russian agent.
The US army doesn't require the consent of all 50 states before it does stuff.
It would be possible, albeit still difficult to imagine at this point, for Europe to have an army that doesn't require unanimity among member states before acting but instead has a single commander in chief and is authorised to go to war based on a majority vote among member state representatives (the latter would have to be skipped in certain emergencies).
TL;DL - amongst other things (about 35 mins in) she calls out the tendency of those with privilege to defer always to the most marginalised person in the room, and fragility on the left. In that respect, at least, I think she has an excellent point and makes it with credibility.
A proper king in the WH as opposed as the orange wannabe,
Yesterday's spat has history..........;;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/07/volodymyr-zelenskiy-tv-comic-who-became-ukraine-president-trump-putin
Look at almost any leader from Trump to Xi to Putin, to almost everyone, male or female – they wear suits because that's what leaders do and your own private aesthetic is neither here nor there.
Kinzinger: There’s a reason that every Trump cabinet member has had to tweet how strong he was today. Because they got the memo from The White House that they better come out and support Trump because this is a really bad day for them and they know it
But supporting and defending Trump (and Vance) is rapidly becoming like supporting Putin and their invasion of Russia: a point of view that, if not quite yet, will shortly be seen as actively betraying our country.
I see GB News has decided that it was all Zelenskyy's fault. I presume that that wll be Reform's line as well, as their tailwagging devotion to Trump continues.
Which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?
Far more effective to reconfigure either the JEF or NATO without the obvious trouble makers.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/28/trump-russia-hacking-cyber-security
Hegseth orders Cyber Command to stand down on Russia planning
https://therecord.media/hegseth-orders-cyber-command-stand-down-russia-planning
Nothing to see here, especially if you are not looking for it.
Covid is going to have been a walk in the park compared to what's coming for us and the rest of europe.
Musing on this over my breakfast and a copy of the Racing Post in the Barking Road this morning....
The problem remains what it has been since Putin sent his troops into Ukraine - how does this end and what does that ending look like?
There are three obvious options - a Russian victory meaning either the conquest of Ukraine or the replacement of Zelenskyy by a puppet Russian Government. Option two, the political collapse of the Putin administration and the withdrawal of all Russian forces from Ukrainian territory.
Option three is the negotiated settlement and that probably means a peacekeeping force sent in between the two armies so we get a variation on Korea or Cyprus with a semi-permanent UN presence on the borders of Donetsk and Luhansk while the rest of Ukraine remains under Kyiv's control.
Trump. presumably, wants to be the man who ended the bloodshed - the peacemaker, the global statesman which plays to his vanity. Now, ending the bloodshed is a noble enough sentiment but it can't be peace at any price - I suspect the minerals deal was the "sweetener" to get Zelenskyy to play his role in the dance but Zelenskyy won't last five minutes at home if he gives up 20% of Ukraine.
The danger now is not Trump or Putin but us, or rather, Europe. The rules of engagement haven't changed - we cannot have British troops actively fighting alongside the Ukrainians because one engagement with the Russians and we are in a very bad place (potentially). Fighting the war by proxy (sending weapons, providing modern equipment) is one thing and we can step up to help Ukraine keep going if America runs away but we cannot put boots on the ground until there is some form of ceasefire or armistice in place.
How do we get to that point from here? Truth to tell, I don't know - Putin thinks he can grind Ukraine into submission despite his enormous losses and there's some evidence that strategy is working but Zelenskyy, if he can call on the combined materiel assistance of Europe, has a chance of achieving a stalemate which might encourage Putin to seek terms. I think Xi, who could have ended this conflict on day one, has a role to play and it may be the emerging Sino-European rapprochement will enable Xi to put significant pressure on Putin to call it quits.
As for ties, they are vital for being able to easily identify if someone is worth talking to depending on their colours and stripe combos, and being able to spot spivs with bad taste across a room.
The policy stances of the right of British politics have always traded on both genuine and faux patriotism - this now presents the Tories with a wedge issue to try and undermine Reform
He is more interested in taking on wokeism and trade wars with China, the EU and Canada and Mexico and deporting immigrants to 'make America great again'
You have been extremely bullish since last night. I want to agree with you but cannot see the practicalities of it.
So a question - on what timescale would you suggest we break away, and how do you envisage it working?
Or is your response led by your gut, without thinking through the practicalities? (Which I would also respect given the last 24 hours btw)
People keep saying that if you watch the whole 50 minute video, Zelensky looks like he was asking for it so I watched the whole 50 minute video and it doesn’t change anything.
https://nitter.poast.org/cjsnowdon/status/1895782124294455579#m
The trivial complaints to justify very non-trivial reactions are extremely telling and predictable. It is a shame that it works on a majority of americans.
Weak and cowardly. That's Trump and anyone who demanded his re-election (like, um, Jenrick) need to explain their actions as well as condemning his. Otherwise it just looks like they are idiots (Jenrick and Badenoch) or bought and paid for (Farage).
Contrary to popular belief, realpolitik does not mean being evil.
https://nitter.poast.org/M_Resanovic/status/1895705349505827007#m
Badenoch, Jenrick and other leading Tories were strong last night in support of Ukraine and Zelensky. That’s what matters - don’t make it harder for them to do the right thing
Starmer seems to have his ear.
Some think she’s seen the way the wind is blowing and moved, others think she’s moving on from previous views. A sinner repenteth.
The story about Eco loon Roger Hallam addressing a bunch of lefties is interesting and seems to have made her genuinely think.
The fact that I can post that possibility, even as black humour, disturbs me
Then last night a Scottish landlady of a bar had a rant at me for being English. Very bizarre and unprovoked.
The funny thing is that I’m not English and they are interlopers here so should probably fuck off home if they don’t like people who sound English.
F1 Testing, including some car design news, Monaco pit stop news, and Verstappen to Aston Martin rumour, plus how I think things stand. Luckily, most (not all) of my early predictions are looking reasonable.
Podbean: https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/f1-testing-2025/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/6ZutfOdyGc0nK6qRj7oTIq
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcfe213b-55fb-408a-a823-dc6693ee9f78/episodes/46c88884-704e-4375-a8ed-498c9fcb66ff/undercutters---f1-podcast-f1-testing-2025
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/f1-testing-2025/id1786574257?i=1000696951781
Transcript: https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/03/f1-testing-2025-undercutters-ep10.html
Important note: the odds have already shifted. Piastri's out to 13 for the title at Ladbrokes, 14 with boost, which is too long given he can be backed each way at a fifth the odds for top 3. He can also be hedged at 12 on Betfair.