I don't think Trump will do anything re Greenland, but Cuba is another thing altogether.
"We need Greenland, absolutely. We need Greenland for national security." Repeated in several interviews.
Seems a clear expression of intent.
Yes but with Trump his intent may be completely different in a couple of hours. Or he may have acted on it by then. He is more impulsive and less predictable than most normal toddlers. That's one of the reasons why his second term has been an absolutely bizarre spectacle so far.
Sean's phoning it in. He needs his old mucker Leon to post here first in order to test and polish his arguments. DEI in Hollywood has meant fewer WM scriptwriters, which has led to a decline in television and an increase in podcasts. Even if all of those things are true, they are not obviously related. Which podcasters are Hollywood writers manqué? Marina Hyde of TRiE perhaps but she's not a chap. And television is being overturned by streamers among other trends, and so is the Hollywood film industry. It's half an idea he had reading his book in an airport lounge, and not developed.
The biggest problem is the bizarre and childish script writing in everything - and lunatic directors producing drek at the behest of the studios.
Umpteen variations on sci-fi comics on film, the streamers paying through the nose for film and programme makers, the decline of advertising as audiences are fragmented. And so on. Oh, and not hiring enough White male scriptwriters might or might not be part of it.
Fortunately, we appear to have hit peak MCU.
Possibly (well, probably) but the Infinity Saga was 23 films from Iron Man (2008) to Avengers:Endgame (2019)/SpiderMan: Far From Home (same year), made some kind of internal sense, and grossed over $22 billion worldwide. It was ridiculously successful and if its successor films are not as successful or as satisfying, well that just goes to show how big an achievement it was.
Spiderman: Far From Home did not gross $22bn. You are out by an order of magnitude.
On MCU:
Emir Han @RealEmirHan · 23h Robert Downey Jr. says he was 'a hundred percent' concerned that being in MCU for a decade would affect his acting skills in Oppenheimer
I don't think Trump will do anything re Greenland, but Cuba is another thing altogether.
"We need Greenland, absolutely. We need Greenland for national security." Repeated in several interviews.
Seems a clear expression of intent.
Yes but with Trump his intent may be completely different in a couple of hours. Or he may have acted on it by then. He is more impulsive and less predictable than most normal toddlers. That's one of the reasons why his second term has been an absolutely bizarre spectacle so far.
It might, but those around him with influence - certainly Vance and Miller - are considerably more consistent in their intent.
There would be considerable practical difficulties attendant on annexation, but the act itself would be pretty simple.
Absent some serious display of spine from Europe (and so far it has been almost completely absent), I think it's fairly likely to happen.
God only knows what form of words Starmer would come up with in order to simultaneously express disapproval while trying to stay friends with Trump.
I don't think Trump will do anything re Greenland, but Cuba is another thing altogether.
"We need Greenland, absolutely. We need Greenland for national security." Repeated in several interviews.
Seems a clear expression of intent.
Yes but with Trump his intent may be completely different in a couple of hours. Or he may have acted on it by then. He is more impulsive and less predictable than most normal toddlers. That's one of the reasons why his second term has been an absolutely bizarre spectacle so far.
It might, but those around him with influence - certainly Vance and Miller - are considerably more consistent in their intent.
There would be considerable practical difficulties attendant on annexation, but the act itself would be pretty simple.
Absent some serious display of spine from Europe (and so far it has been almost completely absent), I think it's fairly likely to happen.
God only knows what form of words Starmer would come up with in order to simultaneously express disapproval while trying to stay friends with Trump.
On that latter score, this is provocative, but not far wrong.
I think I have tweeted this question before but has there ever been a faster and more precipitous decline in a country’s fortunes? When I was born the UK was still seen as one of the masters of the world. Today it looks less sovereign that, say, Portugal https://x.com/MacaesBruno/status/2007923512976285816
Trump: We’re dealing with the people who just got sworn in. Don’t ask me who is in charge because I’ll give you an answer and it will be very controversial.
Trump: We’re dealing with the people who just got sworn in. Don’t ask me who is in charge because I’ll give you an answer and it will be very controversial.
Reporter: What does that mean?
Trump: We’re in charge.
Pottery Barn rules apply, Donald: if you break it, you own it...
Welker: Susie Wiles said an attack on Venezuela’s mainland would require congressional approval
Rubio: This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn't require congressional approval. This was not an invasion or an extended military action…We didn't even know if the mission was going to happen. How can you notify something that you're not sure if it can happen. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2007836761435865330
The new uncertainty principal of legal justification.
America hasn't gone to war with Venezuela, it has merely abducted its leader.
Absurd. That's a distinction without a difference.
The US invaded Venezuela with military force, killing scores of people and destroying military assets. Saying that it was a "law enforcement action" does not change what it was in law.
It’s not “war” - certainly a causi belli but “war” has certain specific characteristics that haven’t been met. This is more of a raid than an invasion (at present)
You need to read up on US law.
Rep. Ami Bera: "Congress…had a classified briefing right before the holiday break. Rubio, Hegseth, and General Caine were asked directly if this was about regime change and if we would be seeing troops on the ground. We were misled. They indicated that we would not see that." https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/2007950062232441303
Not sure of the relevance of your link. Clearly the administration lied to congress.
However US law differentiates between “war” (which only congress has the power to declare) and “armed conflict” which is more of a grey area.
I think it would probably be an act of war, but not war itself.
Welker: Susie Wiles said an attack on Venezuela’s mainland would require congressional approval
Rubio: This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn't require congressional approval. This was not an invasion or an extended military action…We didn't even know if the mission was going to happen. How can you notify something that you're not sure if it can happen. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2007836761435865330
The new uncertainty principal of legal justification.
America hasn't gone to war with Venezuela, it has merely abducted its leader.
Absurd. That's a distinction without a difference.
The US invaded Venezuela with military force, killing scores of people and destroying military assets. Saying that it was a "law enforcement action" does not change what it was in law.
It’s not “war” - certainly a causi belli but “war” has certain specific characteristics that haven’t been met. This is more of a raid than an invasion (at present)
You need to read up on US law.
Rep. Ami Bera: "Congress…had a classified briefing right before the holiday break. Rubio, Hegseth, and General Caine were asked directly if this was about regime change and if we would be seeing troops on the ground. We were misled. They indicated that we would not see that." https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/2007950062232441303
Not sure of the relevance of your link. Clearly the administration lied to congress.
However US law differentiates between “war” (which only congress has the power to declare) and “armed conflict” which is more of a grey area.
I think it would probably be an act of war, but not war itself.
Welker: Susie Wiles said an attack on Venezuela’s mainland would require congressional approval
Rubio: This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn't require congressional approval. This was not an invasion or an extended military action…We didn't even know if the mission was going to happen. How can you notify something that you're not sure if it can happen. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2007836761435865330
The new uncertainty principal of legal justification.
America hasn't gone to war with Venezuela, it has merely abducted its leader.
Absurd. That's a distinction without a difference.
The US invaded Venezuela with military force, killing scores of people and destroying military assets. Saying that it was a "law enforcement action" does not change what it was in law.
It’s not “war” - certainly a causi belli but “war” has certain specific characteristics that haven’t been met. This is more of a raid than an invasion (at present)
You need to read up on US law.
Rep. Ami Bera: "Congress…had a classified briefing right before the holiday break. Rubio, Hegseth, and General Caine were asked directly if this was about regime change and if we would be seeing troops on the ground. We were misled. They indicated that we would not see that." https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/2007950062232441303
Not sure of the relevance of your link. Clearly the administration lied to congress.
However US law differentiates between “war” (which only congress has the power to declare) and “armed conflict” which is more of a grey area.
I think it would probably be an act of war, but not war itself.
Special military operation
I remember a Mr Putin trying that idea once, and it finished with hundreds of his most special forces massacred at Hostomel airfield. Four years later, and he’s still no closer to Kyiv than his men were that day.
Welker: Susie Wiles said an attack on Venezuela’s mainland would require congressional approval
Rubio: This was not an action that required congressional approval. In fact, it couldn't require congressional approval. This was not an invasion or an extended military action…We didn't even know if the mission was going to happen. How can you notify something that you're not sure if it can happen. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2007836761435865330
The new uncertainty principal of legal justification.
America hasn't gone to war with Venezuela, it has merely abducted its leader.
Absurd. That's a distinction without a difference.
The US invaded Venezuela with military force, killing scores of people and destroying military assets. Saying that it was a "law enforcement action" does not change what it was in law.
It’s not “war” - certainly a causi belli but “war” has certain specific characteristics that haven’t been met. This is more of a raid than an invasion (at present)
You need to read up on US law.
Rep. Ami Bera: "Congress…had a classified briefing right before the holiday break. Rubio, Hegseth, and General Caine were asked directly if this was about regime change and if we would be seeing troops on the ground. We were misled. They indicated that we would not see that." https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/2007950062232441303
Not sure of the relevance of your link. Clearly the administration lied to congress.
However US law differentiates between “war” (which only congress has the power to declare) and “armed conflict” which is more of a grey area.
I think it would probably be an act of war, but not war itself.
Special military operation
That’s pretty much describes any US conflict since the last proper declaration of war in 1942.
Decided to back Alonso for the title at 12 and, perhaps a better bet, for Australia (each way) at 19. If adaptability is a key asset in 2026 then he should be well-suited to it. The unique situation as Honda's only team could bode well or poorly.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
That's a load of nonsense. A smaller proportion of UK GDP goes on welfare and healthcare than the US.
How does one go about a community note?
The only way that can be true is if a small percentage of people in the US spend an enormous amount of their own private money on their own healthcare.
American health insurance plans typically have large deductables and co-pays. So for an Obamacare silver plan typically you have to pay the first $3000 per year entirely yourself and then a percentage of the fees after that. A lot of people pay entirely out of pocket because they're not covered for the treatment for various reasons.
Estimates for OECD members based on SOCX data.
There are arguments around categories, but it remains that the USA is monstrously inefficient on outcome per unit of expenditure.
I expect parts of the US media will be covering this soon, given that Trump just transferred a big chunk of the public expenditure to the US version of "strivers" (which I think is income of $40k to $80k).
I think these kinds of international comparisons are really important when people go on moanathons about welfare or the NHS. Could be worse - a lot worse - and the US is certainly not the system we should be aiming for. Social security/protection/welfare is notoriously difficult to measure, but the US is either just behind or roughly the same as the UK depending on who's given it a go.
Vance's propaganda is highly effective though, even on people in the UK.
I don't think Trump will do anything re Greenland, but Cuba is another thing altogether.
"We need Greenland, absolutely. We need Greenland for national security." Repeated in several interviews.
Seems a clear expression of intent.
Yes but with Trump his intent may be completely different in a couple of hours. Or he may have acted on it by then. He is more impulsive and less predictable than most normal toddlers. That's one of the reasons why his second term has been an absolutely bizarre spectacle so far.
Greenland is about carving up Arctic oil and mineral resources between America, Russia and China. Arguably that is a matter of national security. You know who else is next to the Arctic? Canada. Hmm. Canada and Greenland – where have I heard that pairing before.
Venezuela is about oil, true, and of course Trump apparently believes all oil is fungible, but it is also about drugs. Although Venezuela is not a producer, about a third of Colombian cocaine flows to America through Venezuela.
So taking Trump's various utterings at face value, the three motivations are oil, drugs, and the idea that American corporations were robbed when oil was nationalised (not strictly true, they were paid but...). The last is similar to the arguments deployed against Cuba since time immemorial.
Venezuela is about oil, true, and of course Trump apparently believes all oil is fungible, but it is also about drugs. Although Venezuela is not a producer, about a third of Colombian cocaine flows to America through Venezuela.
So taking Trump's various utterings at face value, the three motivations are oil, drugs, and the idea that American corporations were robbed when oil was nationalised (not strictly true, they were paid but...). The last is similar to the arguments deployed against Cuba since time immemorial.
Do we know what it is about? It may be all these things, and others you do not mention, such as distraction from knotty domestic issues such as inflation, the legality of tariffs, or that Epstein bloke. Or it may be that nobody has any clear idea which of these matters, collectively or individually, may have triggered the action. Nobody includes DT himself who was never the most rational of actors and may well be well on his way to GaGa already.
Never attribute to malice what can equally well be explained by incompetence.
Venezuela is about oil, true, and of course Trump apparently believes all oil is fungible, but it is also about drugs. Although Venezuela is not a producer, about a third of Colombian cocaine flows to America through Venezuela.
So taking Trump's various utterings at face value, the three motivations are oil, drugs, and the idea that American corporations were robbed when oil was nationalised (not strictly true, they were paid but...). The last is similar to the arguments deployed against Cuba since time immemorial.
Do we know what it is about? It may be all these things, and others you do not mention, such as distraction from knotty domestic issues such as inflation, the legality of tariffs, or that Epstein bloke. Or it may be that nobody has any clear idea which of these matters, collectively or individually, may have triggered the action. Nobody includes DT himself who was never the most rational of actors and may well be well on his way to GaGa already.
Never attribute to malice what can equally well be explained by incompetence.
The Monroe Doctrine is an excuse for the US to intervene however it likes anywhere in the Americas. It could also tie in with Putin's sphere of influence nonsense about Ukraine, and even Xi Jinping's view of Taiwan.
If we confine ourselves to the permanent members of the UN Security Council, only the United Kingdom and France can be said to respect - more or less consistently - what Europeans refer to as “the rules-based international order.”
Russia is waging war in Ukraine in blatant violation of international law. China’s conduct in the South China Sea has no place within the framework of international law. And neither does the American arrest of Maduro.
In other words, the majority of the permanent members of the Security Council have - diplomatically speaking - a relaxed relationship with the UN Charter and other fundamental components of the rules-based international order.
He’s not wrong.
Have we therefore moved into a post-international law order? Something which maybe lasted from 1945-2016 or 1945-2024 and was essentially upheld by Pax Americana?
And if we have, does it make sense for the UK to observe international law anymore, at least for matters beyond Europe? Or, in doing so, does it actually hamper itself in an increasingly dangerous world?
I haven’t currently got answers to any of these.
I thought Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq broke international law when it was done without a UN mandate? In which case so did the Vietnam War and Russian invasion of Afghanistan
The difference is that countries - even in the breach - still appealed to the notion of international law in order to distinguish themselves from rogue regimes like Iran or North Korea.
Now that the U.S. no longer even bothers doing that, the question is whether the UN charter (which is what we are talking about when we refer to “international law”) serves any purpose, and indeed the UN itself.
In what sense? Any invasion of another nation without UN authorisation under the charter is by definition a breach of international law.
The UN is useful as a talking shop for the nations of the world and does some good work with UNICEF and on health and development etc but at the end of the day the biggest powers of the world will largely run the world. The UN Security Council vetoes at least ensure the UN can't back an action unless all the biggest powers agree
Yes.
And typically the West sought cover from international law. With notable exceptions that I outlined last night.
It worked pretty well, and now it doesn’t.
If an invasion of another nation has no UN approval it is a breach of international law, there has never been any cover for it otherwise
Thailand and Cambodia are fighting at the moment. Which one is in breach?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Trump's threats to Greenland are a reflection of EU & UK military & strategic weakness. There was a price to be paid for spending all that money on welfare & healthcare. This is part of that price.
That's a load of nonsense. A smaller proportion of UK GDP goes on welfare and healthcare than the US.
How does one go about a community note?
The only way that can be true is if a small percentage of people in the US spend an enormous amount of their own private money on their own healthcare.
American health insurance plans typically have large deductables and co-pays. So for an Obamacare silver plan typically you have to pay the first $3000 per year entirely yourself and then a percentage of the fees after that. A lot of people pay entirely out of pocket because they're not covered for the treatment for various reasons.
Estimates for OECD members based on SOCX data.
There are arguments around categories, but it remains that the USA is monstrously inefficient on outcome per unit of expenditure.
I expect parts of the US media will be covering this soon, given that Trump just transferred a big chunk of the public expenditure to the US version of "strivers" (which I think is income of $40k to $80k).
Lilico's argument on welfare is pretty feeble, and little beyond rhetorical. But he's not wrong to say that Trump's posturing (or worse) regarding Greenland is absolutely a reflection of Europe and the UK's strategic weakness.
I don't think Trump will do anything re Greenland, but Cuba is another thing altogether.
"We need Greenland, absolutely. We need Greenland for national security." Repeated in several interviews.
Seems a clear expression of intent.
Yes but with Trump his intent may be completely different in a couple of hours. Or he may have acted on it by then. He is more impulsive and less predictable than most normal toddlers. That's one of the reasons why his second term has been an absolutely bizarre spectacle so far.
Greenland is about carving up Arctic oil and mineral resources between America, Russia and China. Arguably that is a matter of national security. You know who else is next to the Arctic? Canada. Hmm. Canada and Greenland – where have I heard that pairing before.
Would be nice to hear US politicians asked why, if Russia isn’t a bad actor and can be trusted, is Greenland not in America’s control a threat to US national security?
If Vlad is not a lying dangerous shitbag then the US clearly has nothing to fear in that part of the world as they will have his word and his agreements to trust.
Venezuela is about oil, true, and of course Trump apparently believes all oil is fungible, but it is also about drugs. Although Venezuela is not a producer, about a third of Colombian cocaine flows to America through Venezuela.
So taking Trump's various utterings at face value, the three motivations are oil, drugs, and the idea that American corporations were robbed when oil was nationalised (not strictly true, they were paid but...). The last is similar to the arguments deployed against Cuba since time immemorial.
Do we know what it is about? It may be all these things, and others you do not mention, such as distraction from knotty domestic issues such as inflation, the legality of tariffs, or that Epstein bloke. Or it may be that nobody has any clear idea which of these matters, collectively or individually, may have triggered the action. Nobody includes DT himself who was never the most rational of actors and may well be well on his way to GaGa already.
Never attribute to malice what can equally well be explained by incompetence.
I think we have to take them at their word - which is entirely clear, and repeatedly so, that it is about oil. It's certainly not about democracy, given the Chavist regime is left in power so long as they "do what we say". It's effectively another colonial adventure for profit.
It will quite likely end up an unprofitable mess for all concerned, but that doesn't alter what the intention is.
Buy in at the right time and there’s potentially a lot of money to be made from rerunning 1970s New York.
The right time being just before Mamdani gets voted out! The rhetoric from himself and his team, especially on housing costs, is way to the left of anything that’s gone before.
"Sir Keir Starmer has said the UK should move towards closer alignment with EU markets "if it's in our national interest". The prime minister told the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg it would be "better looking to the single market rather than the customs union for our further alignment", in order to protect trade deals with India and the US.
But he ruled out revisiting manifesto promises not to rejoin the EU single market or customs union, or to end freedom of movement."
Starmer understands the customs union stuff is silly.
Customs Union is only silly relative to full membership. Estimates are that in its own it increases GDP by 0.5%, which is nothing remarkable but still more than the combined post Brexit trade deals. And the EU does trade deals as well that the UK would probably be part of in a customs union.
I do think if Starmer talks about a closer relationship with the EU, as most people want, he needs to spell out what this means. Otherwise it's just words.
A lot of ignorance there I'm afraid.
Two basic facts.
1. We cannot rejoin the Customs Union. To do so woukd require the EU making changes to the main treaties that govern the existence of the EU and for a huge number of reasons that just isn't happening.
2. Any ad hoc customs union a la Turkey would not give us access to any FTAs that the EU has or will have with third parties. This is because any existing FTAs would have to be renegotiated between the EU and the third parties to include the UK and again that isn't going to happen. The result is that any country with an FTA with the EU would have full access to the UK market but we would have no reciprocal access.
So a CU would be far worse for UK trade than the existing situation.
If you are going to bandy accusations of ignorance, it helps if you get the facts straight yourself. The EU doesn't have to change its internal treaties to agree a customs union with the UK. Whether it chooses to do so on items acceptable to the UK is another matter, but if that's we want we need to ask.
On your second point the EU doesn't renegotiate its FTAs. All it cares about is that the UK doesn't charge lower import tariffs than what it applies itself. The UK then needs to reconfirm agreements with third countries exactly as it did after Brexit
LOL. I love the fact that the only way you can defend your igorance is by misquoting what I wrote.
I said 'We cannot rejoin the Customs Union'. That is exactly correct. Membership of the Customs Union requires membership of the EU. It is written into the founding treaty of the EU. The only way to change that is to rewrite the treaties.
So either you are being deliberatly dishonest or you are incapable of basic comprehension. I suspect the former. But if it is the latter I suggest you learn to read.
And as I said, why would any country bother to renegotiate a treaty with the UK when they can get free access to our markets via a UK-EU customs union without having to give us the same access in return? This is exactly the problem Turkey has and why they threatened to leave the EU-Turkey CU if the EU signed an FTA with the US.
It is not the same as when we left the EU because the third party countries could not have continued access to our markets without a reciprocal agreement with ourselves.
So yes, you are fucking ignorant.
I on the other hand did mention a customs union and as you're the one bandying around accusations of ignorance this does matter. You imply a solution is impossible when the options people propose are viable, as noted in the links I provided from experts in the field.
A further link on how negotiations with third countries can be carried out. (He also warns against pontificating about Customs Unions!)
Comments
There would be considerable practical difficulties attendant on annexation, but the act itself would be pretty simple.
Absent some serious display of spine from Europe (and so far it has been almost completely absent), I think it's fairly likely to happen.
God only knows what form of words Starmer would come up with in order to simultaneously express disapproval while trying to stay friends with Trump.
I think I have tweeted this question before but has there ever been a faster and more precipitous decline in a country’s fortunes? When I was born the UK was still seen as one of the masters of the world. Today it looks less sovereign that, say, Portugal
https://x.com/MacaesBruno/status/2007923512976285816
https://x.com/Acyn/status/2007977504666173697
Reporter: Who’s in charge of Venezuela right now? Have you spoken to the newly sworn in President?
Trump: We’re dealing with the people who just got sworn in. Don’t ask me who is in charge because I’ll give you an answer and it will be very controversial.
Reporter: What does that mean?
Trump: We’re in charge.
However US law differentiates between “war” (which only congress has the power to declare) and “armed conflict” which is more of a grey area.
I think it would probably be an act of war, but not war itself.
https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/2008004463450366302
Looks like Russian drones aimed at Ukraine have come close to, or even gone over, the Polish border. Polish Air Force have deployed in the area.
https://x.com/euromaidanpress/status/2007948804520136722
Was the largest Li-ion production facility in the country, used to make batteries for drones and other military equipment.
Decided to back Alonso for the title at 12 and, perhaps a better bet, for Australia (each way) at 19. If adaptability is a key asset in 2026 then he should be well-suited to it. The unique situation as Honda's only team could bode well or poorly.
Timely reminder that Australia's nightwatchman has 5 more first class centuries than England's number 3."
And thanks @Andy_JS for suggesting Australia's intensity might be a bit lower now they've won. Fantastic job you did there - for the Aussies.
Vance's propaganda is highly effective though, even on people in the UK.
So taking Trump's various utterings at face value, the three motivations are oil, drugs, and the idea that American corporations were robbed when oil was nationalised (not strictly true, they were paid but...). The last is similar to the arguments deployed against Cuba since time immemorial.
What could go wrong ? She’s previously described property ownership as ‘white supremacy too.
Zohran Mamdani's Director of the Mayor’s Office to Protect Tenants, Cea Weaver:
"We'll transition from treating property as an individual good to a collective good. Whites especially will be impacted."
https://x.com/mamdaniwatch/status/2008048344506286547?s=61
https://x.com/nypost/status/2007961956380979443?s=61
Never attribute to malice what can equally well be explained by incompetence.
But he's not wrong to say that Trump's posturing (or worse) regarding Greenland is absolutely a reflection of Europe and the UK's strategic weakness.
If Vlad is not a lying dangerous shitbag then the US clearly has nothing to fear in that part of the world as they will have his word and his agreements to trust.
NEW THREAD
It's certainly not about democracy, given the Chavist regime is left in power so long as they "do what we say". It's effectively another colonial adventure for profit.
It will quite likely end up an unprofitable mess for all concerned, but that doesn't alter what the intention is.
A further link on how negotiations with third countries can be carried out. (He also warns against pontificating about Customs Unions!)
https://mostfavourednation.substack.com/p/customs-union