politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What if Trump does prefer Putin over Juncker?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What if Trump does prefer Putin over Juncker?
A weary-sounding Jean-Claude Juncker told students in his home state of Luxembourg last week that “we will need to teach the president-elect [i.e. Donald Trump] what Europe is and how it works”. In doing so, he erred badly, not for the first time. You can hear the derision dripping from the words, as, no doubt can the chief occupant of Trump Tower; not someone known for brushing off condescension. If Juncker is looking to build a relationship, it’s an odd way of going about it. Perhaps he’s miffed that Trump’s favourite European is the one who’s done more to break up the EU than anyone since Greece was let into the Euro.
Comments
-
Glorious first!0
-
If it means having the guts to exterminate ISIS once and for all, and cause the final collapse of the rotten & undemocratic EU (like the USSR collapsed) then it's a good thing.0
-
My attitude towards Trump seems to be evolving rapidly.
For a few days after the election, I was bewildered and flabbergasted.
Then I became curious and bemused (curious about what a Trump presidency might be like, and bemused at the protests and riots by the crybaby Clintonistas who don't understand democracy and mostly didn't vote anyway).
Now, I am increasingly trying to think of reasons to be optimistic about President Trump - the idea that he might be more pro-UK and more anti-EU, that he might be good at delegating most decisions to other people instead of trying to do the silly things he was campaigning on, that he might be an inspiring re-invigorator (is that a word?) of American values of freedom and enterprise (a bit like Reagan), that he might collaborate with Putin in ending the civil war in Syria, that he might end up being good enough to be re-elected for a second term.
Then I think I'm being naive and I get glum and gloomy again.0 -
Yeah but I am last in the previous thread (until someone else comes along to talk about hymns).RobD said:Glorious first!
0 -
But I am last in this thread, beat that...DecrepitJohnL said:
Yeah but I am last in the previous thread (until someone else comes along to talk about hymns).RobD said:Glorious first!
0 -
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20161104-the-worlds-first-blue-wine
Have they not heard of Romulan Ale? Although that is more of a spirit than a wine!0 -
FPT for those interested in this Sunday's French primary election:
Last poll published before the legal ban - Ipsos for Le Monde
Fillon 30 (+8 since last Sunday)
Juppe 29 (-7)
Sarkozy 29 (=)
Le Maire 5 (-2) NKM 3.5 (+0.5) Poisson 2 (=) Cope 1.5 (+0.5)
The last poll is the first to have another leader than Juppe and he is not at all sure to qualify.
I am beginning to think he could get ousted in the first round which was totally unthinkable two weeks ago. It would be an enormous surprise, of the magnitude of Brexit. Juppe has basically the support of most media and of the top civil servants.
They would probably switch to Macron if Juppe is out.
0 -
Chris_from_Paris said:
FPT for those interested in this Sunday's French primary election:
Last poll published before the legal ban - Ipsos for Le Monde
Fillon 30 (+8 since last Sunday)
Juppe 29 (-7)
Sarkozy 29 (=)
Le Maire 5 (-2) NKM 3.5 (+0.5) Poisson 2 (=) Cope 1.5 (+0.5)
The last poll is the first to have another leader than Juppe and he is not at all sure to qualify.
I am beginning to think he could get ousted in the first round which was totally unthinkable two weeks ago. It would be an enormous surprise, of the magnitude of Brexit. Juppe has basically the support of most media and of the top civil servants.
They would probably switch to Macron if Juppe is out.
Could Sarkozy sneak through the middle? And a bit of a tough question, but which is best for Brexit Britain?0 -
Site not accessible from Britain because it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee.RobD said:http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20161104-the-worlds-first-blue-wine
Have they not heard of Romulan Ale? Although that is more of a spirit than a wine!0 -
You poor schmucks back home, all these glorious travel stories you are missing out on!DecrepitJohnL said:
Site not accessible from Britain because it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee.RobD said:http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20161104-the-worlds-first-blue-wine
Have they not heard of Romulan Ale? Although that is more of a spirit than a wine!0 -
We have SeanT for that.RobD said:
You poor schmucks back home, all these glorious travel stories you are missing out on!DecrepitJohnL said:
Site not accessible from Britain because it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee.RobD said:http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20161104-the-worlds-first-blue-wine
Have they not heard of Romulan Ale? Although that is more of a spirit than a wine!0 -
Note that I didn't say debauched travel storiesDecrepitJohnL said:
We have SeanT for that.RobD said:
You poor schmucks back home, all these glorious travel stories you are missing out on!DecrepitJohnL said:
Site not accessible from Britain because it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee.RobD said:http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20161104-the-worlds-first-blue-wine
Have they not heard of Romulan Ale? Although that is more of a spirit than a wine!
0 -
Interesting thought from David Herdson on linking NATO and EU discussions.
Is he suggesting that Britain hint at the dissolution of NATO in order to get freedom of movement concessions?
But if you're Eastern European... Freedom of movement might be more important than ever if you're worried about Russian aggression....0 -
Let's hope we don't play games with our NATO responsibilities. It should be beneath us.rkrkrk said:Interesting thought from David Herdson on linking NATO and EU discussions.
Is he suggesting that Britain hint at the dissolution of NATO in order to get freedom of movement concessions?
But if you're Eastern European... Freedom of movement might be more important than ever if you're worried about Russian aggression....0 -
Trump might not be too impressed with the state of Britain's armed forces after several years of Tory cuts.0
-
Yes, the lack of missiles on our destroyers does seem a bit ridiculous. One wonders what we're spending that 2% of GDP on.DecrepitJohnL said:Trump might not be too impressed with the state of Britain's armed forces after several years of Tory cuts.
0 -
Apologies if posted earlier, first I've read of it
Nigel Farage rules out peerage 'at the moment'
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-380324210 -
Donald Trump and the end of history.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/11/donald-trump-and-the-end-of-history/?wpisrc=nl_wonk&wpmm=1#comments0 -
Great article, Mr Herdson.0
-
Could Sarkozy sneak through the middle? And a bit of a tough question, but which is best for Brexit Britain?RobD said:Chris_from_Paris said:FPT for those interested in this Sunday's French primary election:
Last poll published before the legal ban - Ipsos for Le Monde
Fillon 30 (+8 since last Sunday)
Juppe 29 (-7)
Sarkozy 29 (=)
Le Maire 5 (-2) NKM 3.5 (+0.5) Poisson 2 (=) Cope 1.5 (+0.5)
The last poll is the first to have another leader than Juppe and he is not at all sure to qualify.
I am beginning to think he could get ousted in the first round which was totally unthinkable two weeks ago. It would be an enormous surprise, of the magnitude of Brexit. Juppe has basically the support of most media and of the top civil servants.
They would probably switch to Macron if Juppe is out.
Yes Sarkozy has a decent chance to top the first round. However I don t see how he could win the second round.
As for Brexit, Juppe is probably the closer to Barnier- personally and on the Brexit issue.
Fillon is the most eurosceptic of the three and Sarkozy would probably try to use the Brexit question to Re-establish his duopoly with Merkel.0 -
This article from Mr Herdson is a great way to start the weekend. Very stimulating.
"On the other hand, if the process stalls in acrimony and then falls off a cliff as the clock runs out, there’ll undoubtedly be questions about whether Britain shouldn’t follow the US out of any meaningful NATO commitment – and in such circumstances, rightly so."
Agreed. The EU project has taken a road that destabilises NATO and as we saw with the Ukraine, its inept Foreign policy assisted Putin's aims.0 -
That Juncker is an idiot is already well known. But this time his idiocy might actually end up doing the whole of Europe a favour:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/juncker-threatens-to-quit-over-future-of-martin-schulz-1.28735420 -
It's the booze talking. Like he's ever going to pull the emergency cord and walk off the gravy train....MTimT said:That Juncker is an idiot is already well known. But this time his idiocy might actually end up doing the whole of Europe a favour:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/juncker-threatens-to-quit-over-future-of-martin-schulz-1.28735420 -
On topic, the practical situation is that the EU can no longer rely on the US. It's not clear whether that's just a short-term aberration, but it always looked like it was going to be the long-term reality. The EU has a hard time adjusting to slow-moving changes like this without a kick up the arse, but they just got a kick up the arse, so they can and will make the best of it.
The EU has lots of unemployed young people, and a need for fiscal transfers to the periphery, and the periphery is where the external borders are. Military spending is ideal for fiscal transfers and job creation. EU GDP is like 10 times Russian GDP, so there's no long-term reason why it should need the US to defend itself against Russia.0 -
From the illustrations in the story. stuff looks like meths. Or a freer-running Parfait Amour. If anyone remembers that.DecrepitJohnL said:
Site not accessible from Britain because it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee.RobD said:http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20161104-the-worlds-first-blue-wine
Have they not heard of Romulan Ale? Although that is more of a spirit than a wine!-1 -
Let Trump and Putin go empire building in the Middle Eastif they want to, but we should steer clear. Middle East entanglements seldom end well for us.TCPoliticalBetting said:This article from Mr Herdson is a great way to start the weekend. Very stimulating.
"On the other hand, if the process stalls in acrimony and then falls off a cliff as the clock runs out, there’ll undoubtedly be questions about whether Britain shouldn’t follow the US out of any meaningful NATO commitment – and in such circumstances, rightly so."
Agreed. The EU project has taken a road that destabilises NATO and as we saw with the Ukraine, its inept Foreign policy assisted Putin's aims.
As far as NATO goes, it is time to wind it up as obselete to the modern world, particularly one in which the major military of NATO is allied to its supposed antagonist.
Certainly we should stear clear. We do not want to be involved with Trumps foreign policy, which seems to be rather incoherent. Trump feeds off anti-Iraq war sentiment, but is also pro military with very hawkish advisors, so despite his incoherence is likely to get even more involved in the Middle East.
The place where Putin and Trump are likely to fall out is Turkey, which shows every sign of a decline into a failed state. We should get out of NATO before that happens.0 -
I'd suggest drain cleaner. Wonderfully patronising quote, at the end of the piece, from a sommelier.OldKingCole said:
From the illustrations in the story. stuff looks like meths. Or a freer-running Parfait Amour. If anyone remembers that.DecrepitJohnL said:
Site not accessible from Britain because it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee.RobD said:http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20161104-the-worlds-first-blue-wine
Have they not heard of Romulan Ale? Although that is more of a spirit than a wine!0 -
The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.0 -
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.0 -
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pulling out of Europe, and should pull out of NATO too. In the unlikely event of war in the Baltics we should steer clear. It would no longer be our business.0 -
Isn't David a Tory? Read his final paragraph.RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
0 -
If we are going to throw one toy out of the pram, we may as well throw them all out? We are not pulling out of Europe (lost count of how many times this has been said), just the political institutions of the European Union.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pulling out of Europe, and should pull out of NATO too. In the unlikely event of war in the Baltics we should steer clear. It would no longer be our business.0 -
Maybe I shouldn't have said party, but governmentSouthamObserver said:
Isn't David a Tory? Read his final paragraph.RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears. 0 -
The consequences of such a war would be. And they would be entirely negative. In the absence of NATO appeasement would be our only option. Corbyn vindicated.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pulling out of Europe, and should pull out of NATO too. In the unlikely event of war in the Baltics we should steer clear. It would no longer be our business.
0 -
Without US commitment to NATO Europe becomes Russia's to play with.RobD said:
If we are going to throw one toy out of the pram, we may as well throw them all out? We are not pulling out of Europe (lost count of how many times this has been said), just the political institutions of the European Union.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pulling out of Europe, and should pull out of NATO too. In the unlikely event of war in the Baltics we should steer clear. It would no longer be our business.
0 -
Do you really want to fight Russia over Estonia, when Russia is allied to Trumps America?SouthamObserver said:
The consequences of such a war would be. And they would be entirely negative. In the absence of NATO appeasement would be our only option. Corbyn vindicated.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pulling out of Europe, and should pull out of NATO too. In the unlikely event of war in the Baltics we should steer clear. It would no longer be our business.
I think it a very unlikely scenario, but should it happen, we do not want to be there. If Trump sees Russia as an ally, perhaps we should too.
I think far more likely that Putin keeps up the venerable Russian tradition of messing with Turkey (another NATO member, and one with US bases). I can see Turkey easily splitting into a 3 way civil war between Islamist factions, Old school Ataturkists and Kurds. Once again steer clear.
0 -
Are they realistically going to leave NATO, or are they posturing to get the Europeans to cough up more for defence?SouthamObserver said:
Without US commitment to NATO Europe becomes Russia's to play with.RobD said:
If we are going to throw one toy out of the pram, we may as well throw them all out? We are not pulling out of Europe (lost count of how many times this has been said), just the political institutions of the European Union.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pulling out of Europe, and should pull out of NATO too. In the unlikely event of war in the Baltics we should steer clear. It would no longer be our business.0 -
Of course, if NATO goes appeasement and hoping against hope Russia leaves us alone is our only option. My argument is with the emerging Tory notion that the end of NATO is in any way desirable. Like Brexit, it's something Jeremy Corbyn has long hoped for. That should give any sensible Tory pause for thought. But are there any sensible Tories left?foxinsoxuk said:
Do you really want to fight Russia over Estonia, when Russia is allied to Trumps America?SouthamObserver said:
The consequences of such a war would be. And they would be entirely negative. In the absence of NATO appeasement would be our only option. Corbyn vindicated.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pulling out of Europe, and should pull out of NATO too. In the unlikely event of war in the Baltics we should steer clear. It would no longer be our business.
I think it a very unlikely scenario, but should it happen, we do not want to be there. If Trump sees Russia as an ally, perhaps we should too.
I think far more likely that Putin keeps up the venerable Russian tradition of messing with Turkey (another NATO member, and one with US bases). I can see Turkey easily splitting into a 3 way civil war between Islamist factions, Old school Ataturkists and Kurds. Once again steer clear.
0 -
I do wonder how long the Trump-Putin alliance will last. I mean, new US administrations always do a "reset their relations with Russia" thing; When Hillary Clinton started she actually had a little red button made that was supposed to say "reset" on it (although they bollocksed up the translation).
His foreign policy team is presumably going to be full of old foreign policy hawks from the Cold War, and in practice Russia is the main military opposition to the US, even when the US isn't trying to promote democracy.
What they have in common is that they're both prickly narcissistic, nationalistic authoritarians. But that doesn't feel like the perfect recipe for a harmonious long-term relationship.0 -
Let's hope it's the latter. If it isn't the consequences for us are as dire as they are for the continental Europeans.RobD said:
Are they realistically going to leave NATO, or are they posturing to get the Europeans to cough up more for defence?SouthamObserver said:
Without US commitment to NATO Europe becomes Russia's to play with.RobD said:
If we are going to throw one toy out of the pram, we may as well throw them all out? We are not pulling out of Europe (lost count of how many times this has been said), just the political institutions of the European Union.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pulling out of Europe, and should pull out of NATO too. In the unlikely event of war in the Baltics we should steer clear. It would no longer be our business.
0 -
An interesting and thought provoking article.
It is clear that some of the geo-political certainties of our lifetimes are starting to unwind. Arguably this still fallout from 1989, which shows how long changes take to work through the system. Trump, as an outsider uniquely untied by either personal, experiential or cultural links to the 'received wisdom' of past decades enables the US to look at everything afresh.
Why would modern America be worried about Russia? It doesn't really threaten its interests at all.
The biggest risk for us is that we are still in the mindset of the 1940s when we had a big role to play in world affairs. Post-Brexit Britain will be a hugely reduced country in terms of our global role. Yet in foreign affairs the question remains to what extent we will be able to (or even that is makes any sense to) detach our interests from those of our Western European neighbours.
And, whether we like it or not, in a world where the Americans aren't interested in Europe and are more focussed on the long-term threat from China and some of its neighbours, the arguments for military capability at EU level become a lot stronger.0 -
My guess is that all that means is that he doesn't want to leave the EP yet.RobD said:Apologies if posted earlier, first I've read of it
Nigel Farage rules out peerage 'at the moment'
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-380324210 -
If the rest of Europe coughs up more money, then why need the Yanks? Such a situation would mean relations bstween the EU and USA reaching a new low.RobD said:
Are they realistically going to leave NATO, or are they posturing to get the Europeans to cough up more for defence?SouthamObserver said:
Without US commitment to NATO Europe becomes Russia's to play with.RobD said:
If we are going to throw one toy out of the pram, we may as well throw them all out? We are not pulling out of Europe (lost count of how many times this has been said), just the political institutions of the European Union.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pulling out of Europe, and should pull out of NATO too. In the unlikely event of war in the Baltics we should steer clear. It would no longer be our business.
Do we really want to have Trumps Troops in Britains green and pleasant land?
The US has an astonishing presence across the world, having 95% of the worlds extraterritorial bases:
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-probably-has-more-foreign-military-bases-than-any-other-people-nation-or-empire-in-history/
It is time for Yankee to go home.
0 -
Hyperbole much?IanB2 said:An interesting and thought provoking article.
It is clear that some of the geo-political certainties of our lifetimes are starting to unwind. Arguably this still fallout from 1989, which shows how long changes take to work through the system. Trump, as an outsider uniquely untied by either personal, experiential or cultural links to the 'received wisdom' of past decades enables the US to look at everything afresh.
Why would modern America be worried about Russia? It doesn't really threaten its interests at all.
The biggest risk for us is that we are still in the mindset of the 1940s when we had a big role to play in world affairs. Post-Brexit Britain will be a hugely reduced country in terms of our global role. Yet in foreign affairs the question remains to what extent we will be able to (or even that is makes any sense to) detach our interests from those of our Western European neighbours.
And, whether we like it or not, in a world where the Americans aren't interested in Europe and are more focussed on the long-term threat from China and some of its neighbours, the arguments for military capability at EU level become a lot stronger.
Pray, how're we detaching our interests from Western Europe?
We're pretty entwined trade wise, military wise and diplomatically outside of the recent artificial construct of the EU0 -
Mr SO, I know it is the early morning, but you seem to fear an awful lot today. Is this, as with your betting strategy, natural pessimism?SouthamObserver said:
Let's hope it's the latter. If it isn't the consequences for us are as dire as they are for the continental Europeans.RobD said:
Are they realistically going to leave NATO, or are they posturing to get the Europeans to cough up more for defence?SouthamObserver said:
Without US commitment to NATO Europe becomes Russia's to play with.RobD said:
If we are going to throw one toy out of the pram, we may as well throw them all out? We are not pulling out of Europe (lost count of how many times this has been said), just the political institutions of the European Union.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pulling out of Europe, and should pull out of NATO too. In the unlikely event of war in the Baltics we should steer clear. It would no longer be our business.
0 -
Geographically we cannot detach ourselves from Europe. And in a world where free trade is less likely, detaching ourselves from the single market looks ever-more foolish. But, it seems, appeasement of Russia and feeding off the scraps a white supremacist, protectionist US president might offer us are the cornerstones of the Tories' emerging Brexit strategy.IanB2 said:An interesting and thought provoking article.
It is clear that some of the geo-political certainties of our lifetimes are starting to unwind. Arguably this still fallout from 1989, which shows how long changes take to work through the system. Trump, as an outsider uniquely untied by either personal, experiential or cultural links to the 'received wisdom' of past decades enables the US to look at everything afresh.
Why would modern America be worried about Russia? It doesn't really threaten its interests at all.
The biggest risk for us is that we are still in the mindset of the 1940s when we had a big role to play in world affairs. Post-Brexit Britain will be a hugely reduced country in terms of our global role. Yet in foreign affairs the question remains to what extent we will be able to (or even that is makes any sense to) detach our interests from those of our Western European neighbours.
And, whether we like it or not, in a world where the Americans aren't interested in Europe and are more focussed on the long-term threat from China and some of its neighbours, the arguments for military capability at EU level become a lot stronger.
0 -
Brexit means Brexit! and if it means anything at all it means detaching our interests from continental Europe.Mortimer said:
Hyperbole much?IanB2 said:An interesting and thought provoking article.
It is clear that some of the geo-political certainties of our lifetimes are starting to unwind. Arguably this still fallout from 1989, which shows how long changes take to work through the system. Trump, as an outsider uniquely untied by either personal, experiential or cultural links to the 'received wisdom' of past decades enables the US to look at everything afresh.
Why would modern America be worried about Russia? It doesn't really threaten its interests at all.
The biggest risk for us is that we are still in the mindset of the 1940s when we had a big role to play in world affairs. Post-Brexit Britain will be a hugely reduced country in terms of our global role. Yet in foreign affairs the question remains to what extent we will be able to (or even that is makes any sense to) detach our interests from those of our Western European neighbours.
And, whether we like it or not, in a world where the Americans aren't interested in Europe and are more focussed on the long-term threat from China and some of its neighbours, the arguments for military capability at EU level become a lot stronger.
Pray, how're we detaching our interests from Western Europe?
We're pretty entwined trade wise, military wise and diplomatically outside of the recent artificial construct of the EU0 -
It's all predicated on NATO. If America's commitment to that ends - as now seems likely - it changes everything.Mortimer said:
Hyperbole much?IanB2 said:An interesting and thought provoking article.
It is clear that some of the geo-political certainties of our lifetimes are starting to unwind. Arguably this still fallout from 1989, which shows how long changes take to work through the system. Trump, as an outsider uniquely untied by either personal, experiential or cultural links to the 'received wisdom' of past decades enables the US to look at everything afresh.
Why would modern America be worried about Russia? It doesn't really threaten its interests at all.
The biggest risk for us is that we are still in the mindset of the 1940s when we had a big role to play in world affairs. Post-Brexit Britain will be a hugely reduced country in terms of our global role. Yet in foreign affairs the question remains to what extent we will be able to (or even that is makes any sense to) detach our interests from those of our Western European neighbours.
And, whether we like it or not, in a world where the Americans aren't interested in Europe and are more focussed on the long-term threat from China and some of its neighbours, the arguments for military capability at EU level become a lot stronger.
Pray, how're we detaching our interests from Western Europe?
We're pretty entwined trade wise, military wise and diplomatically outside of the recent artificial construct of the EU
0 -
"Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of a doubt?"0
-
It is - or ought to be - in Britain's interests to prevent Russian expansionism westward. After all, having tried and succeeded in Georgia and the Crimea, where does he stop?foxinsoxuk said:
Do you really want to fight Russia over Estonia, when Russia is allied to Trumps America?SouthamObserver said:
The consequences of such a war would be. And they would be entirely negative. In the absence of NATO appeasement would be our only option. Corbyn vindicated.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pulling out of Europe, and should pull out of NATO too. In the unlikely event of war in the Baltics we should steer clear. It would no longer be our business.
I think it a very unlikely scenario, but should it happen, we do not want to be there. If Trump sees Russia as an ally, perhaps we should too.
I think far more likely that Putin keeps up the venerable Russian tradition of messing with Turkey (another NATO member, and one with US bases). I can see Turkey easily splitting into a 3 way civil war between Islamist factions, Old school Ataturkists and Kurds. Once again steer clear.
But if the US walks away and the rEU is actively antagonistic towards theUK, why would it be our business to put ourselves in extreme danger on behalf of countries opposed to acting in a friendly manner?
That's not appeasement as such, which is a deliberate policy of trying to assuage perceived grievances. It would be better called isolation.0 -
The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.0
-
Mortimer said:
Mr SO, I know it is the early morning, but you seem to fear an awful lot today. Is this, as with your betting strategy, natural pessimism?SouthamObserver said:
Let's hope it's the latter. If it isn't the consequences for us are as dire as they are for the continental Europeans.RobD said:
Are they realistically going to leave NATO, or are they posturing to get the Europeans to cough up more for defence?SouthamObserver said:
Without US commitment to NATO Europe becomes Russia's to play with.RobD said:
If we are going to throw one toy out of the pram, we may as well throw them all out? We are not pulling out of Europe (lost count of how many times this has been said), just the political institutions of the European Union.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pulling out of Europe, and should pull out of NATO too. In the unlikely event of war in the Baltics we should steer clear. It would no longer be our business.
</blockquote
It's been a similar pattern all week. Understandable when your party is Labour.0 -
The true face of C21 fascism. Attractive to tumbleweed and other simple floaters.0
-
Is Russia the main opposition to the US? That's a very Eurocentric view. China looks a more credible candidate for that title to me.edmundintokyo said:I do wonder how long the Trump-Putin alliance will last. I mean, new US administrations always do a "reset their relations with Russia" thing; When Hillary Clinton started she actually had a little red button made that was supposed to say "reset" on it (although they bollocksed up the translation).
His foreign policy team is presumably going to be full of old foreign policy hawks from the Cold War, and in practice Russia is the main military opposition to the US, even when the US isn't trying to promote democracy.
What they have in common is that they're both prickly narcissistic, nationalistic authoritarians. But that doesn't feel like the perfect recipe for a harmonious long-term relationship.0 -
In the 21st century just how do we isolate ourselves from events that take place in the continent that we are part of and with which we do most of our trade? We can't. If Trump pulls the US out we have to hope that Putin continues to look east and south. If he starts looking west, we're in as much trouble as the rest of western Europe.david_herdson said:
It is - or ought to be - in Britain's interests to prevent Russian expansionism westward. After all, having tried and succeeded in Georgia and the Crimea, where does he stop?foxinsoxuk said:
Do you really want to fight Russia over Estonia, when Russia is allied to Trumps America?SouthamObserver said:
The consequences of such a war would be. And they would be entirely negative. In the absence of NATO appeasement would be our only option. Corbyn vindicated.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pullingusiness.
I think it a very unlikely scenario, but should it happen, we do not want to be there. If Trump sees Russia as an ally, perhaps we should too.
I think far more likely that PutinOld school Ataturkists and Kurds. Once again steer clear.
But if the US walks away and the rEU is actively antagonistic towards theUK, why would it be our business to put ourselves in extreme danger on behalf of countries opposed to acting in a friendly manner?
That's not appeasement as such, which is a deliberate policy of trying to assuage perceived grievances. It would be better called isolation.
0 -
Quite right.SouthamObserver said:
In the 21st century just how do we isolate ourselves from events that take place in the continent that we are part of and with which we do most of our trade? We can't. If Trump pulls the US out we have to hope that Putin continues to look east and south. If he starts looking west, we're in as much trouble as the rest of western Europe.david_herdson said:
It is - or ought to be - in Britain's interests to prevent Russian expansionism westward. After all, having tried and succeeded in Georgia and the Crimea, where does he stop?foxinsoxuk said:
Do you really want to fight Russia over Estonia, when Russia is allied to Trumps America?SouthamObserver said:
The consequences of such a war would be. And they would be entirely negative. In the absence of NATO appeasement would be our only option. Corbyn vindicated.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
On purely party political grounds, the end of NATO removes a significant Tory firewall against Corbyn and the Labour left generally. It's what they have been advocating for years.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pullingusiness.
I think it a very unlikely scenario, but should it happen, we do not want to be there. If Trump sees Russia as an ally, perhaps we should too.
I think far more likely that PutinOld school Ataturkists and Kurds. Once again steer clear.
But if the US walks away and the rEU is actively antagonistic towards theUK, why would it be our business to put ourselves in extreme danger on behalf of countries opposed to acting in a friendly manner?
That's not appeasement as such, which is a deliberate policy of trying to assuage perceived grievances. It would be better called isolation.0 -
Great article Mr Herdson, one of the most interesting I've read in years.0
-
Europe is a huge American export market. It's not in US interests to let it become part of Russia's sphere of influence. If it does, Russia becomes a superpower again. China, too, is a concern, of course; but China is not an expansionist power in the way that Russia has been traditionally - and in the way that it is under Putin.david_herdson said:
Is Russia the main opposition to the US? That's a very Eurocentric view. China looks a more credible candidate for that title to me.edmundintokyo said:I do wonder how long the Trump-Putin alliance will last. I mean, new US administrations always do a "reset their relations with Russia" thing; When Hillary Clinton started she actually had a little red button made that was supposed to say "reset" on it (although they bollocksed up the translation).
His foreign policy team is presumably going to be full of old foreign policy hawks from the Cold War, and in practice Russia is the main military opposition to the US, even when the US isn't trying to promote democracy.
What they have in common is that they're both prickly narcissistic, nationalistic authoritarians. But that doesn't feel like the perfect recipe for a harmonious long-term relationship.
0 -
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
0 -
I agree, as I said in the thread leader. However, a commitment couldn't be unconditional. That would beboth bad diplomacy and probably untenable in terms of public support.SouthamObserver said:
In the 21st century just how do we isolate ourselves from events that take place in the continent that we are part of and with which we do most of our trade? We can't. If Trump pulls the US out we have to hope that Putin continues to look east and south. If he starts looking west, we're in as much trouble as the rest of western Europe.david_herdson said:
It is - or ought to be - in Britain's interests to prevent Russian expansionism westward. After all, having tried and succeeded in Georgia and the Crimea, where does he stop?foxinsoxuk said:
Do you really want to fight Russia over Estonia, when Russia is allied to Trumps America?SouthamObserver said:
The consequences of such a war would be. And they would be entirely negative. In the absence of NATO appeasement would be our only option. Corbyn vindicated.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
Less free trade, appeasement of Putin's Russia, less public spending, cosying up to a white supremacist crook. The Tory vision of Brexit is not the one we were sold during the referendum campaign. It will end in tears.
We are pullingusiness.
I think it a very unlikely scenario, but should it happen, we do not want to be there. If Trump sees Russia as an ally, perhaps we should too.
I think far more likely that PutinOld school Ataturkists and Kurds. Once again steer clear.
But if the US walks away and the rEU is actively antagonistic towards theUK, why would it be our business to put ourselves in extreme danger on behalf of countries opposed to acting in a friendly manner?
That's not appeasement as such, which is a deliberate policy of trying to assuage perceived grievances. It would be better called isolation.
By the way, it's not just the US and UK. Le Pen is anti-Nato too, isn't she?0 -
There's been much written on this thread that Russia would dominate the UK on a military basis but while that may have been the case in the Cold War, nowadays we spend almost as much as the Russians do on our military. Plus with Trident we're still a nuclear power in our own right.
Military expenditure by nation
1 United States $596.0 bn
2 China $215.0 bn
3 Saudi Arabia $87.2 bn
4 Russia $66.4 bn
5 United Kingdom $55.5 bn
What's the point of having Trident and spending that much on our military if we don't think we carry a deterrent in our own right?0 -
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.SouthamObserver said:
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
0 -
Yep - LePen, whose party is funded by a Russian bank, is pro-Putin and anti-NATO. Just like Jeremy Corbyn.david_herdson said:
I agree, as I said in the thread leader. However, a commitment couldn't be unconditional. That would beboth bad diplomacy and probably untenable in terms of public support.SouthamObserver said:
In the 21st century just how do we isolate ourselves from events that take place in the continent that we are part of and with which we do most of our trade? We can't. If Trump pulls the US out we have to hope that Putin continues to look east and south. If he starts looking west, we're in as much trouble as the rest of western Europe.david_herdson said:
It is - or ought to be - in Britain's interests to prevent Russian expansionism westward. After all, having tried and succeeded in Georgia and the Crimea, where does he stop?foxinsoxuk said:
Do you really want to fight Russia over Estonia, when Russia is allied to Trumps America?SouthamObserver said:
The consequences of such a war would be. And they would be entirely negative. In the absence of NATO appeasement would be our only option. Corbyn vindicated.foxinsoxuk said:
What is NATO for if Trump and Putin are allied?RobD said:
Is anyone in the Tory party advocating the end of NATO?SouthamObserver said:The level of Tory delusion about Trump and Brexit is utterly bizarre. And Corbynesque. Without NATO Russia becomes, by a country mile, the pre-eminent military power in Europe - a continent we are part of and with which we do over 40% of all our trade. We are as vulnerable as the Germans, the French and the Italians to Putin's nationalism, and any Russian expansion westwards - whether actual or through increased influence - would damage us as much as anyone else. Is our policy really to be appeasement? Without NATO it would have to be.
Less free trade, appeasement of Puend in tears.
We are pullingusiness.
I think it a very unlikely scenario, but should it happen, we do not want to be there. If Trump sees Russia as an ally, perhaps we should too.
I think far more likely that PutinOld school Ataturkists and Kurds. Once again steer clear.
But if the US walks away and the rEU is actively antagonistic towards theUK, why would it be our business to put ourselves in extreme danger on behalf of countries opposed to acting in a friendly manner?
That's not appeasement as such, which is a deliberate policy of trying to assuage perceived grievances. It would be better called isolation.
By the way, it's not just the US and UK. Le Pen is anti-Nato too, isn't she?
0 -
There is a remarkable amount of undue pessimism on this thread. It seems to be many people's reaction to continually being on the wrong side of history:Philip_Thompson said:There's been much written on this thread that Russia would dominate the UK on a military basis but while that may have been the case in the Cold War, nowadays we spend almost as much as the Russians do on our military. Plus with Trident we're still a nuclear power in our own right.
Military expenditure by nation
1 United States $596.0 bn
2 China $215.0 bn
3 Saudi Arabia $87.2 bn
4 Russia $66.4 bn
5 United Kingdom $55.5 bn
What's the point of having Trident and spending that much on our military if we don't think we carry a deterrent in our own right?
- left wing when leadership has abandoned all hope of winning elections
- identity politics-centric when the common ground has finally rejected it
- unable to move past the cold war paradigm0 -
I said the main *military* opposition, and yes, I think so. The only Chinese military expansion is in the South China Sea, which isn't very interesting to the US, and they get shooed away if the US starts to take an interest.david_herdson said:
Is Russia the main opposition to the US? That's a very Eurocentric view. China looks a more credible candidate for that title to me.edmundintokyo said:I do wonder how long the Trump-Putin alliance will last. I mean, new US administrations always do a "reset their relations with Russia" thing; When Hillary Clinton started she actually had a little red button made that was supposed to say "reset" on it (although they bollocksed up the translation).
His foreign policy team is presumably going to be full of old foreign policy hawks from the Cold War, and in practice Russia is the main military opposition to the US, even when the US isn't trying to promote democracy.
What they have in common is that they're both prickly narcissistic, nationalistic authoritarians. But that doesn't feel like the perfect recipe for a harmonious long-term relationship.0 -
Globally we are second in ISTAR and Amphib-delivery. We also have a logistic tail that European forces often need to call upon: We are no New Zealand!IanB2 said:An interesting and thought provoking article.
It is clear that some of the geo-political certainties of our lifetimes are starting to unwind. Arguably this still fallout from 1989, which shows how long changes take to work through the system. Trump, as an outsider uniquely untied by either personal, experiential or cultural links to the 'received wisdom' of past decades enables the US to look at everything afresh.
Why would modern America be worried about Russia? It doesn't really threaten its interests at all.
The biggest risk for us is that we are still in the mindset of the 1940s when we had a big role to play in world affairs. Post-Brexit Britain will be a hugely reduced country in terms of our global role. Yet in foreign affairs the question remains to what extent we will be able to (or even that is makes any sense to) detach our interests from those of our Western European neighbours.
And, whether we like it or not, in a world where the Americans aren't interested in Europe and are more focussed on the long-term threat from China and some of its neighbours, the arguments for military capability at EU level become a lot stronger.
And your point is caller...?0 -
Russia could maybe send 30,000 or 40,000 men West, compared to ten times that number a generation ago. So, I doubt if they are a big threat to us. But it would still be a big pity to see free nations in Eastern Europe being brought back under their control.SouthamObserver said:
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
0 -
While China is expanding economically it does not need to expand militarily with any great speed, any more than the USA itself needed to when it expanded economically.
Russia is an economic basket case, so if it is to retain global significance it has to do so militarily. On a far less extreme level Britain followed the same path after the Second World War. If you disagree, ask yourself just what exactly we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.0 -
Trumpism is identity politics - as his appointment of white supremacists to senior positions demonstrates. Russian nationalism preceded the Cold War and has continued since its end. Jeremy Corbyn wants an end to NATO and supports Putin, just as he supports Brexit. The right and left are merging into each other.Mortimer said:
There is a remarkable amount of undue pessimism on this thread. It seems to be many people's reaction to continually being on the wrong side of history:Philip_Thompson said:There's been much written on this thread that Russia would dominate the UK on a military basis but while that may have been the case in the Cold War, nowadays we spend almost as much as the Russians do on our military. Plus with Trident we're still a nuclear power in our own right.
Military expenditure by nation
1 United States $596.0 bn
2 China $215.0 bn
3 Saudi Arabia $87.2 bn
4 Russia $66.4 bn
5 United Kingdom $55.5 bn
What's the point of having Trident and spending that much on our military if we don't think we carry a deterrent in our own right?
- left wing when leadership has abandoned all hope of winning elections
- identity politics-centric when the common ground has finally rejected it
- unable to move past the cold war paradigm
0 -
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.AlastairMeeks said:
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.SouthamObserver said:
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
0 -
I think that you have to allow for Purchasing Power Parity when looking at gross spend,which is why Russia is far more militarily capable than our aircraft carriers without planes and escorts without anti ship missiles.Philip_Thompson said:There's been much written on this thread that Russia would dominate the UK on a military basis but while that may have been the case in the Cold War, nowadays we spend almost as much as the Russians do on our military. Plus with Trident we're still a nuclear power in our own right.
Military expenditure by nation
1 United States $596.0 bn
2 China $215.0 bn
3 Saudi Arabia $87.2 bn
4 Russia $66.4 bn
5 United Kingdom $55.5 bn
What's the point of having Trident and spending that much on our military if we don't think we carry a deterrent in our own right?
Even so, Russia does not have the economic power to start a new Cold War in Europe, it is a commodity based economy, Upper Volta with rockets. The Syrian adventure and problems in the Donbass are too much for them financially already.
When it comes to appeasement, that is surely what the Brexiteers and kippers are up to with their desire to force Ukraine to handover large chunks of its territory to Putin. This time the appeasers are on the right - and in the White House.0 -
Calling identity politics by appealing to a trope of left-wing identity politics isn't going to wash I'm afraid.SouthamObserver said:
Trumpism is identity politics - as his appointment of white supremacists to senior positions demonstrates. Russian nationalism preceded the Cold War and has continued since its end. Jeremy Corbyn wants an end to NATO and supports Putin, just as he supports Brexit. The right and left are merging into each other.Mortimer said:
There is a remarkable amount of undue pessimism on this thread. It seems to be many people's reaction to continually being on the wrong side of history:Philip_Thompson said:There's been much written on this thread that Russia would dominate the UK on a military basis but while that may have been the case in the Cold War, nowadays we spend almost as much as the Russians do on our military. Plus with Trident we're still a nuclear power in our own right.
Military expenditure by nation
1 United States $596.0 bn
2 China $215.0 bn
3 Saudi Arabia $87.2 bn
4 Russia $66.4 bn
5 United Kingdom $55.5 bn
What's the point of having Trident and spending that much on our military if we don't think we carry a deterrent in our own right?
- left wing when leadership has abandoned all hope of winning elections
- identity politics-centric when the common ground has finally rejected it
- unable to move past the cold war paradigm
Trumpism is the end of offence, or rather, the end of there being a problem in being offended. I'm not surprised we're seeing it in America; the last two years of European politics has demonstrated that the cozy liberal post-war cultural consensus is over.
If an alien anthropologist landed in early November he would have had every right to think that sexism was the most heinous of crimes with the amount of wailing apparent.0 -
If Russia reasserts itself in Eastern Europe, those 30,000-40,000 move closer to us and its human resources pool gets much bigger.Sean_F said:
Russia could maybe send 30,000 or 40,000 men West, compared to ten times that number a generation ago. So, I doubt if they are a big threat to us. But it would still be a big pity to see free nations in Eastern Europe being brought back under their control.SouthamObserver said:
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
0 -
Surely Russia has always wanted a warm water port. Cannot see how this could be fully achieved by aiding Assad, but a relaible ally with a Mediterranean port, where substantial facilities could be 'leased" would go a long way to achieving such an ambition.0
-
Russia spends slightly more than us by spending well over 5% of GDP on its military. We spend just 2% on ours which is nearly as much as Russia. It won't take a long time probably, especially if oil prices stay low, before Russia struggles to afford to match us on military expenditure.AlastairMeeks said:While China is expanding economically it does not need to expand militarily with any great speed, any more than the USA itself needed to when it expanded economically.
Russia is an economic basket case, so if it is to retain global significance it has to do so militarily. On a far less extreme level Britain followed the same path after the Second World War. If you disagree, ask yourself just what exactly we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
China spends just under 2% on theirs and spends almost what the UK and Russia do combined.
Russia is history.0 -
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.AlastairMeeks said:
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.SouthamObserver said:
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
0 -
Erm, I'm no expert, but isn't that what Tartus already is?OldKingCole said:Surely Russia has always wanted a warm water port. Cannot see how this could be fully achieved by aiding Assad, but a relaible ally with a Mediterranean port, where substantial facilities could be 'leased" would go a long way to achieving such an ambition.
0 -
Russia is Austro-Hungary; China the new Reich. Maybe India will step-up as France but where will she find her new Entente?AlastairMeeks said:While China is expanding economically it does not need to expand militarily with any great speed, any more than the USA itself needed to when it expanded economically.
Russia is an economic basket case, so if it is to retain global significance it has to do so militarily. On a far less extreme level Britain followed the same path after the Second World War. If you disagree, ask yourself just what exactly we were doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.0 -
WTW?AlastairMeeks said:
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.AlastairMeeks said:
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.SouthamObserver said:
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
0 -
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?AlastairMeeks said:
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.AlastairMeeks said:
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.SouthamObserver said:
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
0 -
Water Twice WeeklyPhilip_Thompson said:
WTW?AlastairMeeks said:
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.AlastairMeeks said:
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.SouthamObserver said:
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
0 -
Presumably humour is the last bastion of Remoaning now. Maybe there is a spot for you on HIGNFY?AlastairMeeks said:
Water Twice WeeklyPhilip_Thompson said:
WTW?AlastairMeeks said:
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.AlastairMeeks said:
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.SouthamObserver said:
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
0 -
Needs stabilisation, though. Not an expert, either, though.Mortimer said:
Erm, I'm no expert, but isn't that what Tartus already is?OldKingCole said:Surely Russia has always wanted a warm water port. Cannot see how this could be fully achieved by aiding Assad, but a relaible ally with a Mediterranean port, where substantial facilities could be 'leased" would go a long way to achieving such an ambition.
0 -
Nope - white supremacy is about identity and it's been around for centuries, as the history of the US demonstrates only too clearly.Mortimer said:
Calling identity politics by appealing to a trope of left-wing identity politics isn't going to wash I'm afraid.SouthamObserver said:
Trumpism is identity politics - as his appointment of white supremacists to senior positions demonstrates. Russian nationalism preceded the Cold War and has continued since its end. Jeremy Corbyn wants an end to NATO and supports Putin, just as he supports Brexit. The right and left are merging into each other.Mortimer said:
There is a remarkable amount of undue pessimism on this thread. It seems to be many people's reaction to continually being on the wrong side of history:Philip_Thompson said:There's been much written on this thread that Russia would dominate the UK on a military basis but while that may have been the case in the Cold War, nowadays we spend almost as much as the Russians do on our military. Plus with Trident we're still a nuclear power in our own right.
Military expenditure by nation
1 United States $596.0 bn
2 China $215.0 bn
3 Saudi Arabia $87.2 bn
4 Russia $66.4 bn
5 United Kingdom $55.5 bn
What's the point of having Trident and spending that much on our military if we don't think we carry a deterrent in our own right?
- left wing when leadership has abandoned all hope of winning elections
- identity politics-centric when the common ground has finally rejected it
- unable to move past the cold war paradigm
Trumpism is the end of offence, or rather, the end of there being a problem in being offended. I'm not surprised we're seeing it in America; the last two years of European politics has demonstrated that the cozy liberal post-war cultural consensus is over.
If an alien anthropologist landed in early November he would have had every right to think that sexism was the most heinous of crimes with the amount of wailing apparent.
What is enlightening is how right wingers who rightly called foul over Corbyn Labour's anti-Semitism are perfectly content to accommodate Trump's racism. It shows their objections to Corbyn were not based on principle, but on partisanship. No surprise there, of course.
0 -
Yup, Russian GDP is amazing, check out the wild swings with the price of oil:Philip_Thompson said:Russia spends slightly more than us by spending well over 5% of GDP on its military. We spend just 2% on ours which is nearly as much as Russia. It won't take a long time probably, especially if oil prices stay low, before Russia struggles to afford to match us on military expenditure.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp
The other thing the EU can do is speed up its move to renewable energy. Conveniently, this is another thing that you can do spending a lot of money in countries that need fiscal transfers.0 -
48% support is not little.Mortimer said:
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?AlastairMeeks said:
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.AlastairMeeks said:
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.SouthamObserver said:
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.0 -
https://twitter.com/dizzy_thinks/status/799875704297058305SouthamObserver said:Nope - white supremacy is about identity and it's been around for centuries, as the history of the US demonstrates only too clearly.
0 -
Tangentially, can anyone think of any military spending in the history of history that's provided more return on its investment than the million dollars a year or whatever that the Russians must have spent on Fancy Bear?0
-
There is not 48% support for Europe, there was 48% opposition to us leaving. That is entirely different, as you well know Doc.foxinsoxuk said:
48% support is not little.Mortimer said:
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?AlastairMeeks said:
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.AlastairMeeks said:
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.SouthamObserver said:
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substatially set them up and have been part of for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
Remarkable how 40 years of Europe nearly worked. It has convinced an awful lot of posters here of our own inadequacies. Thank god the vote was in 2016. We can staunch this rot now.0 -
The idea that offence is the preserve of the left is absurd. Very easy to offend a right winger, you just have to challenge what they care about.0
-
Yep - emerging Tory Brexit policy is based on cuddling up to a protectionist, white supremacist American president and appeasing an expansionist Russian nationalist president. That is certainly putting the great back into Britain.foxinsoxuk said:
48% support is not little.Mortimer said:
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?AlastairMeeks said:
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.AlastairMeeks said:
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.SouthamObserver said:
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.
0 -
I really can't see many pro-EUers being 'Want Only Europe'. Would you care to expand on it?Mortimer said:
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?AlastairMeeks said:
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.AlastairMeeks said:
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.SouthamObserver said:
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
0 -
That's rubbish. Plenty of things off limits. You just can't see it. You take it for granted.Mortimer said:
This right winger can't stand issues being off limits. Offence is about demarcating certain issues as off limits.Jonathan said:The idea that offence is the preserve of the left is absurd. Very easy to offend a right winger, you just have to challenge what they care about.
0 -
Ha, ha. You called out left-wing anti-Semitism, you are silent about right wing white supremacy. There's no principle involved. It's all about partisanship.Mortimer said:
This right winger can't stand issues being off limits. Offence is about demarcating certain issues as off limits.Jonathan said:The idea that offence is the preserve of the left is absurd. Very easy to offend a right winger, you just have to challenge what they care about.
0 -
48% do not support the EU's political institution. 48% is the combination of those that supported that, those that supported the government (and almost every other parties) recommendation and those that opposed change/supported the status quo.foxinsoxuk said:
48% support is not little.Mortimer said:
Whereas the obsession of WOE (Want Only Europe) Remainers in a political institution with which we have little in common and for which there is little public support is perfectly sane, is it?AlastairMeeks said:
The WTW Leavers on this occasion are helpful. Their demented obsession with Brexit to the exclusion of any other concern, no matter how pressing or existential, makes the likely course of action in such circumstances only too clear, no matter how counterproductive that might be to Britain's own interests.SouthamObserver said:
Yep, I get that - but I don't see it as a particularly strong bargaining chip given we are just as vulnerable as everyone else.AlastairMeeks said:
Of course. But if the rest of Europe wants to hang together rather than separately it cannot expect to do so after a chaotic Brexit.SouthamObserver said:
Without the US in Europe, we are as vulnerable to Russian expansionism - de facto or de jure - as much as any other western European country. Our armed forces alone are no deterrent whatsoever. The rest of Europe knows this, as does our military.AlastairMeeks said:The correct way to play this card is extremely indirectly, inviting the EU to consider carefully the nature of the relationship in the round it wants with Britain in the future. Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is more likely to make disparaging references to Italian courage.
The political institutions of the EU have a great deal in common with our own, not least because we substantially set them up and have been part of them for 40 years.
Brexit means Brexit means a turning away from continental Europe. In practice that probably means being Trumps poodle again. Get with the programme and cuddle up to uncle Vlad.
If Putin is Trumps new bestie, he should be our new bestie too.0 -
Lord - you made a virtual identical comment about 3 days ago. Obsessive what? Time to move on and deal with the new reality - screeching racism ain't gonna cut it.SouthamObserver said:
Nope - white supremacy is about identity and it's been around for centuries, as the history of the US demonstrates only too clearly.Mortimer said:
Calling identity politics by appealing to a trope of left-wing identity politics isn't going to wash I'm afraid.SouthamObserver said:
Trumpism is identity politics - as his appointment of white supremacists to senior positions demonstrates. Russian nationalism preceded the Cold War and has continued since its end. Jeremy Corbyn wants an end to NATO and supports Putin, just as he supports Brexit. The right and left are merging into each other.Mortimer said:
There is a remarkable amount of undue pessimism on this thread. It seems to be many people's reaction to continually being on the wrong side of history:Philip_Thompson said:There's been much written on this thread that Russia would dominate the UK on a military basis but while that may have been the case in the Cold War, nowadays we spend almost as much as the Russians do on our military. Plus with Trident we're still a nuclear power in our own right.
Military expenditure by nation
1 United States $596.0 bn
2 China $215.0 bn
3 Saudi Arabia $87.2 bn
4 Russia $66.4 bn
5 United Kingdom $55.5 bn
What's the point of having Trident and spending that much on our military if we don't think we carry a deterrent in our own right?
- left wing when leadership has abandoned all hope of winning elections
- identity politics-centric when the common ground has finally rejected it
- unable to move past the cold war paradigm
Trumpism is the end of offence, or rather, the end of there being a problem in being offended. I'm not surprised we're seeing it in America; the last two years of European politics has demonstrated that the cozy liberal post-war cultural consensus is over.
If an alien anthropologist landed in early November he would have had every right to think that sexism was the most heinous of crimes with the amount of wailing apparent.
What is enlightening is how right wingers who rightly called foul over Corbyn Labour's anti-Semitism are perfectly content to accommodate Trump's racism. It shows their objections to Corbyn were not based on principle, but on partisanship. No surprise there, of course.0 -
Carry on Demarcating Issues as Off Limits.SouthamObserver said:
Ha, ha. You called out left-wing anti-Semitism, you are silent about right wing white supremacy. There's no principle involved. It's all about partisanship.Mortimer said:
This right winger can't stand issues being off limits. Offence is about demarcating certain issues as off limits.Jonathan said:The idea that offence is the preserve of the left is absurd. Very easy to offend a right winger, you just have to challenge what they care about.
The lesser known of the franchise....
0 -
Outrageous, Two comments in three days! Not only that, but two comments showing consistency. Good grief! World ends.felix said:
Lord - you made a virtual identical comment about 3 days ago. Obsessive what? Time to move on and deal with the new reality - screeching racism ain't gonna cut it.SouthamObserver said:
Nope - white supremacy is about identity and it's been around for centuries, as the history of the US demonstrates only too clearly.Mortimer said:
Calling identity politics by appealing to a trope of left-wing identity politics isn't going to wash I'm afraid.SouthamObserver said:
Trumpism is identity politics - as his appointment of white supremacists to senior positions demonstrates. Russian nationalism preceded the Cold War and has continued since its end. Jeremy Corbyn wants an end to NATO and supports Putin, just as he supports Brexit. The right and left are merging into each other.Mortimer said:
There is a remarkable amount of undue pessimism on this thread. It seems to be many people's reaction to continually being on the wrong side of history:Philip_Thompson said:There's been much written on this thread that Russia would dominate the UK on a military basis but while that may have been the case in the Cold War, nowadays we spend almost as much as the Russians do on our military. Plus with Trident we're still a nuclear power in our own right.
Military expenditure by nation
1 United States $596.0 bn
2 China $215.0 bn
3 Saudi Arabia $87.2 bn
4 Russia $66.4 bn
5 United Kingdom $55.5 bn
What's the point of having Trident and spending that much on our military if we don't think we carry a deterrent in our own right?
- left wing when leadership has abandoned all hope of winning elections
- identity politics-centric when the common ground has finally rejected it
- unable to move past the cold war paradigm
Trumpism is the end of offence, or rather, the end of there being a problem in being offended. I'm not surprised we're seeing it in America; the last two years of European politics has demonstrated that the cozy liberal post-war cultural consensus is over.
If an alien anthropologist landed in early November he would have had every right to think that sexism was the most heinous of crimes with the amount of wailing apparent.
What is enlightening is how right wingers who rightly called foul over Corbyn Labour's anti-Semitism are perfectly content to accommodate Trump's racism. It shows their objections to Corbyn were not based on principle, but on partisanship. No surprise there, of course.
0 -
It really seems to be all the identity politics obsessed left bother shouting about any more.....felix said:
Lord - you made a virtual identical comment about 3 days ago. Obsessive what? Time to move on and deal with the new reality - screeching racism ain't gonna cut it.SouthamObserver said:
Nope - white supremacy is about identity and it's been around for centuries, as the history of the US demonstrates only too clearly.Mortimer said:
Calling identity politics by appealing to a trope of left-wing identity politics isn't going to wash I'm afraid.SouthamObserver said:
Trumpism is identity politics - as his appointment of white supremacists to senior positions demonstrates. Russian nationalism preceded the Cold War and has continued since its end. Jeremy Corbyn wants an end to NATO and supports Putin, just as he supports Brexit. The right and left are merging into each other.Mortimer said:
There is a remarkable amount of undue pessimism on this thread. It seems to be many people's reaction to continually being on the wrong side of history:Philip_Thompson said:There's been much written on this thread that Russia would dominate the UK on a military basis but while that may have been the case in the Cold War, nowadays we spend almost as much as the Russians do on our military. Plus with Trident we're still a nuclear power in our own right.
Military expenditure by nation
1 United States $596.0 bn
2 China $215.0 bn
3 Saudi Arabia $87.2 bn
4 Russia $66.4 bn
5 United Kingdom $55.5 bn
What's the point of having Trident and spending that much on our military if we don't think we carry a deterrent in our own right?
- left wing when leadership has abandoned all hope of winning elections
- identity politics-centric when the common ground has finally rejected it
- unable to move past the cold war paradigm
Trumpism is the end of offence, or rather, the end of there being a problem in being offended. I'm not surprised we're seeing it in America; the last two years of European politics has demonstrated that the cozy liberal post-war cultural consensus is over.
If an alien anthropologist landed in early November he would have had every right to think that sexism was the most heinous of crimes with the amount of wailing apparent.
What is enlightening is how right wingers who rightly called foul over Corbyn Labour's anti-Semitism are perfectly content to accommodate Trump's racism. It shows their objections to Corbyn were not based on principle, but on partisanship. No surprise there, of course.
The welfare state has, somewhat ironically, destroyed the raison d'etre of the modern left.0
