Gone but not forgotten – politicalbetting.com

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Sandpit said:

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

Sean_F said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

Leon said:

Startling fact from Unherd


“The Brics countries are now a larger part of the global economy than the G7 countries. According to EY, Brics makes up around 36.7% of the global economy on a purchasing power parity basis while the G7 makes up only 27.5%.”

https://unherd.com/newsroom/brics-pay-threatens-the-western-financial-system/

They are a pile of shit though, not one of them you would want to visit unless you were at gunpoint.

But that's the game they're now playing at, chipping away at the Commonwealth whilst it itself takes potshots at us - all being funded by China - whilst we cry into our soup at how awful and terrible we are (spoiler: we're not)

Unless we man up and recognise we're in a new age of hard power politics of iron and fire we'll be eaten alive and end up a vassal stage with less freedom and less prosperity.

The Commonwealth is all but dead. Modi chose to kiss Putins ring rather than the King's when a clash of dates came up.

The Chinese are going to be in a strong position in the trade war with Trumpistan too.

They can’t even organise a set of games. It mattered a lot to the Queen, but its time has come and gone.

It's a bit hard to see the point of it. As a transition from empire it was not going to last. Country after country is re-appraising colonial history, and rarely in ways that PB Tories would like. Take the smash hit film RRR for example:

https://youtu.be/f_vbAtFSEc0?feature=shared

That does not mean that the 're-appraisal' is a more accurate rendition of history than the one favoured by the 'PB Tories' you dislike. Or a positive move for this country. Or even theirs.

Far too many lefties see everything that is wrong in the world as being our fault. It's a self-hatred that acknowledges all our sins, but ignores or diminishes any good we have done.

Sure. Revisionist history can be as bad as the hagiographic history that it tears down.

I am quite willing to accept the positives of British Imperialism, but simply not willing to ignore the massive crimes of empire too.

If we should be proud of what our ancestors did, should we also not be a bit of ashamed on their behalf too?

Indeed. But we see a lot of concentration on the shame and not on the pride. when, for instance, did you say anything positive about the Victorian age or the British Empire?

Too many people on the left see nationalism and imperialism as bad. When it is us, at least. They seem perfectly happy with Indian nationalism or Russian imperialism. I wouldn't necessarily put you in that camp,
but it certainly explains many left and Labour figures. Corbyn, for one.

And the death of the Commonwealth will not leave a vacuum; it will be filled with other groupings such as BRICS. Which, whilst it is the country's choice, is not a good thing.

BRICS isn’t a think. It’s an acronym dreamt up by a Goldman Sachs analyst. It’s just an equivalent to the G7. Russia, China and India are rivals not allies

Err no. It’s a thing. They’re having their annual conference this week.


https://brics-russia2024.ru/en/summit/

The one goal they have in common is to undermine the West and especially the US$.

Expect to see from them in future, things like sanctions on Russia lead to sanctions from China and India, as they all buy oil denominated in Yuan.

It’s a group of countries holding a conference, just common adversaries at the moment. It’s not like NATO or NAFTA or the EU with an intrinsic geopolitical logic

But you literally claimed it was just some acronym invented in the FT. Now you’ve been shown that they are actually having a BRICS conference - at which they have been discussing a BRICS payment system to circumvent SWIFT

So you were totally and embarrassingly wrong

https://x.com/unherd/status/1849696142642016561?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Leon said:

SouthamObserver said:

The famously woke and anti-Trump Wall Street Journal has clearly invented the story about Elon Musk being in regular contact with Vladimir Putin. The fact that Musk shares Putin's entire values system is entirely coincidental. He is a far better engineer, though.

We know musk is in regular contact with Putin because he TOLD us about a year ago when he was floating ideas for a Ukrainian peace

Similarly, several Russian oligarchs - like Abramovich - are talking to the west even as they obey Putin

This is how diplomacy works. Powerful individuals can often act as go-betweens

Otherwise how would peace ever get discussed? Next

StillWaters said:

Slackbladder said:

StillWaters said:

Sandpit said:

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

Sean_F said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

Leon said:

Startling fact from Unherd


“The Brics countries are now a larger part of the global economy than the G7 countries. According to EY, Brics makes up around 36.7% of the global economy on a purchasing power parity basis while the G7 makes up only 27.5%.”

https://unherd.com/newsroom/brics-pay-threatens-the-western-financial-system/

They are a pile of shit though, not one of them you would want to visit unless you were at gunpoint.

But that's the game they're now playing at, chipping away at the Commonwealth whilst it itself takes potshots at us - all being funded by China - whilst we cry into our soup at how awful and terrible we are (spoiler: we're not)

Unless we man up and recognise we're in a new age of hard power politics of iron and fire we'll be eaten alive and end up a vassal stage with less freedom and less prosperity.

The Commonwealth is all but dead. Modi chose to kiss Putins ring rather than the King's when a clash of dates came up.

The Chinese are going to be in a strong position in the trade war with Trumpistan too.

They can’t even organise a set of games. It mattered a lot to the Queen, but its time has come and gone.

It's a bit hard to see the point of it. As a transition from empire it was not going to last. Country after country is re-appraising colonial history, and rarely in ways that PB Tories would like. Take the smash hit film RRR for example:

https://youtu.be/f_vbAtFSEc0?feature=shared

That does not mean that the 're-appraisal' is a more accurate rendition of history than the one favoured by the 'PB Tories' you dislike. Or a positive move for this country. Or even theirs.

Far too many lefties see everything that is wrong in the world as being our fault. It's a self-hatred that acknowledges all our sins, but ignores or diminishes any good we have done.

Sure. Revisionist history can be as bad as the hagiographic history that it tears down.

I am quite willing to accept the positives of British Imperialism, but simply not willing to ignore the massive crimes of empire too.

If we should be proud of what our ancestors did, should we also not be a bit of ashamed on their behalf too?

Indeed. But we see a lot of concentration on the shame and not on the pride. when, for instance, did you say anything positive about the Victorian age or the British Empire?

Too many people on the left see nationalism and imperialism as bad. When it is us, at least. They seem perfectly happy with Indian nationalism or Russian imperialism. I wouldn't necessarily put you in that camp,
but it certainly explains many left and Labour figures. Corbyn, for one.

And the death of the Commonwealth will not leave a vacuum; it will be filled with other groupings such as BRICS. Which, whilst it is the country's choice, is not a good thing.

BRICS isn’t a think. It’s an acronym dreamt up by a Goldman Sachs analyst. It’s just an equivalent to the G7. Russia, China and India are rivals not allies

Err no. It’s a thing. They’re having their annual conference this week.


https://brics-russia2024.ru/en/summit/

The one goal they have in common is to undermine the West and especially the US$.


Expect to see from them in future, things like sanctions on Russia lead to sanctions from China and India, as they all buy oil denominated in Yuan.

It’s a group of countries holding a conference, just common adversaries at the moment. It’s not like NATO or NAFTA or the EU with an intrinsic geopolitical logic

yet...

India and China are rivals. Russia is a supplicant that talks a big game. Brazil needs to fix its own mess.

Contrast with something like Five Eyes where there is a common heritage and close ties.

Pulpstar said:

Trump's definitely got his hispanic vote up. Miami-Dade now light red in early and mail voting.

StillWaters said:

Pulpstar said:

Trump's definitely got his hispanic vote up. Miami-Dade now light red in early and mail voting.

Cuban voters are distinct from the broader Hispanic group with a much more republican tinge

moonshine said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

SouthamObserver said:

The famously woke and anti-Trump Wall Street Journal has clearly invented the story about Elon Musk being in regular contact with Vladimir Putin. The fact that Musk shares Putin's entire values system is entirely coincidental. He is a far better engineer, though.

We know musk is in regular contact with Putin because he TOLD us about a year ago when he was floating ideas for a Ukrainian peace

Similarly, several Russian oligarchs - like Abramovich - are talking to the west even as they obey Putin

This is how diplomacy works. Powerful individuals can often act as go-betweens

Otherwise how would peace ever get discussed? Next

You say 'peace'; if he's talking to Putin alone, then it'll be 'surrender' they're discussing. Ukrainian surrender, that is.

It's like Corbyn talking to the IRA etc in terms of 'peace', If you're talking to only one side, then you're not talking peace. You're talking their side. Worse, these publicity-seeking idiots who go about trying to negotiate 'peace' without the explicit or implicit say-so of their government often make matters worse by disrupting other negotiations.

A serious question. What would you do regarding Russia / Ukraine if you were in charge? Do you think the current “strategy” is a good one?

Leon said:

Ooh. Just been offered a trip to Svalbard…. IN WINTER

Has anyone been? That’s gonna be COLD - but interesting

StillWaters said:

Leon said:

StillWaters said:

Sandpit said:

StillWaters said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

Sean_F said:

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

Leon said:

Startling fact from Unherd


“The Brics countries are now a larger part of the global economy than the G7 countries. According to EY, Brics makes up around 36.7% of the global economy on a purchasing power parity basis while the G7 makes up only 27.5%.”

https://unherd.com/newsroom/brics-pay-threatens-the-western-financial-system/

They are a pile of shit though, not one of them you would want to visit unless you were at gunpoint.

But that's the game they're now playing at, chipping away at the Commonwealth whilst it itself takes potshots at us - all being funded by China - whilst we cry into our soup at how awful and terrible we are (spoiler: we're not)

Unless we man up and recognise we're in a new age of hard power politics of iron and fire we'll be eaten alive and end up a vassal stage with less freedom and less prosperity.

The Commonwealth is all but dead. Modi chose to kiss Putins ring rather than the King's when a clash of dates came up.

The Chinese are going to be in a strong position in the trade war with Trumpistan too.

They can’t even organise a set of games. It mattered a lot to the Queen, but its time has come and gone.

It's a bit hard to see the point of it. As a transition from empire it was not going to last. Country after country is re-appraising colonial history, and rarely in ways that PB Tories would like. Take the smash hit film RRR for example:

https://youtu.be/f_vbAtFSEc0?feature=shared

That does not mean that the 're-appraisal' is a more accurate rendition of history than the one favoured by the 'PB Tories' you dislike. Or a positive move for this country. Or even theirs.

Far too many lefties see everything that is wrong in the world as being our fault. It's a self-hatred that acknowledges all our sins, but ignores or diminishes any good we have done.

Sure. Revisionist history can be as bad as the hagiographic history that it tears down.

I am quite willing to accept the positives of British Imperialism, but simply not willing to ignore the massive crimes of empire too.

If we should be proud of what our ancestors did, should we also not be a bit of ashamed on their behalf too?

Indeed. But we see a lot of concentration on the shame and not on the pride. when, for instance, did you say anything positive about the Victorian age or the British Empire?

Too many people on the left see nationalism and imperialism as bad. When it is us, at least. They seem perfectly happy with Indian nationalism or Russian imperialism. I wouldn't necessarily put you in that camp,
but it certainly explains many left and Labour figures. Corbyn, for one.

And the death of the Commonwealth will not leave a vacuum; it will be filled with other groupings such as BRICS. Which, whilst it is the country's choice, is not a good thing.

BRICS isn’t a think. It’s an acronym dreamt up by a Goldman Sachs analyst. It’s just an equivalent to the G7. Russia, China and India are rivals not allies

Err no. It’s a thing. They’re having their annual conference this week.


https://brics-russia2024.ru/en/summit/

The one goal they have in common is to undermine the West and especially the US$.

Expect to see from them in future, things like sanctions on Russia lead to sanctions from China and India, as they all buy oil denominated in Yuan.

It’s a group of countries holding a conference, just common adversaries at the moment. It’s not like NATO or NAFTA or the EU with an intrinsic geopolitical logic

But you literally claimed it was just some acronym invented in the FT. Now you’ve been shown that they are actually having a BRICS conference - at which they have been discussing a BRICS payment system to circumvent SWIFT

So you were totally and embarrassingly wrong

https://x.com/unherd/status/1849696142642016561?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

No - you misunderstand.

BRICS was invented by an analyst to sell the concept of investing in emerging markets. It has logic from an economic analysis perspective.

But a group of countries holding a conference doesn’t make it a “thing”.

NATO is. Five Eyes. ASEAN. OPEC. G7. May be even G20 or G12+1…

These all have logic, a purpose and a rationale. The “BRICS” don’t like American and Western values. They aren’t a common group, just a bunch of thugs that aware hanging out together.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Latest from Conhome confirming Badenoch retains her lead over Jenrick

https://conservativehome.com/2024/10/25/badenoch-maintains-her-lead-in-our-final-leadership-survey/

Kemi 1.22 in from 1.25 earlier this morning.
Bob J 4.8

moonshine said:

Nigelb said:

moonshine said:

nico679 said:

So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .

Isn’t this a security risk ?

And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?

And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .

I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…

And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…

Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?

I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.

But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.

I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better.
You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.

I have forgotten nothing. I just don’t agree with you. Ukraine is in the position it is in because Obama / Biden / Sullivan do not understand the need for credible deterrence. “Chemical weapons are a red line”…”it depends what sort of invasion”.

If we take Bob Woodward’s version, in autumn 2022 when we were fixed on the Queen’s funeral and a lettuce, the Russian army was on the run. But Ukraine was ordered to let them escape from Kherson because Biden was scared of nuclear war.

With hindsight, Ukraine was then setup to fail in 2023 with the much much trialed counter offensive. It was being expected to cross dense mine fields with no air support for its engineers, which got picked off by Russian helicopters. At every turn, Ukraine has had one hand behind its back. Don’t forget Lend Lease expired unused. You can’t blame that on Trump.

The bill that was eventually passed this year had a requirement for the US to provide ATACMS. Because the Biden White House had refused to provide them.

In his obsession with de-escalation doctinre, Biden has forgotten that deterrence is cheaper and more effective the earlier you do it. But we are sadly now well beyond that point. There needs to be an urgent strategic rethink about how to restore credible deterrence in Europe and the Pacific. And I’m not clear how sending thousands of Ukrainians to their deaths against North Korean slaves achieves that. Will trump provide a good answer? I don’t know. Neither do you. I do know that the status quo is becoming very dangerous indeed.

TimS said:

Leon said:

Ooh. Just been offered a trip to Svalbard…. IN WINTER

Has anyone been? That’s gonna be COLD - but interesting

Don't be eaten by a polar bear.

It might not be that cold.

Sandpit said:

moonshine said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.

How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.

Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.

It’s quite astonishing that three consecutive US elections can each have the two worst candidates of all time, but somehow the Americans have managed to do it.

Hopefully both parties find some sensibles for 2028.

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

moonshine said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.

How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.

Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.

It’s quite astonishing that three consecutive US elections can each have the two worst candidates of all time, but somehow the Americans have managed to do it.

Hopefully both parties find some sensibles for 2028.

Depends how you define 'worst' McGovern and Goldwater were both trounced far more than Hillary, Trump and Harris were or will be and of course Biden won in 2020.

Though yes had Haley been picked by Republican voters as GOP nominee she would be heading for a clear victory, more acceptable to Independents and Democrats than Trump and Ukraine would be assured of her strong support.

moonshine said:

Nigelb said:

Foss said:

Nigelb said:

moonshine said:

nico679 said:

So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .

Isn’t this a security risk ?

And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?

And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .

I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…

And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…

Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?

I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.

But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.

I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better.
You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.

The Ukraine is in the situation it is in is because it traded it's nukes for words. We should take note.

Whether hanging onto it nukes was a practical possibility at the time is debatable. Though they could have restarted a nuclear program after that.
It's in the situation it is because it trusted the word of France, Germany and the US to guarantee its security. Which is why nothing short of NATO membership is going to be the basis for a peace settlement.

Ukrainian nukes would have prevented the invasion no more than Russian nukes prevented the invasion of Kursk. It worries me that sensible people think nukes deter conventional attack, they only deter nuclear attack.

We (that is Western civilisation) need a strong nuclear AND conventional deterrence. Thank God for the Poles, they’re the only thing right now standing between a British mobilisation in the next decade.

Sean_F said:

moonshine said:

Nigelb said:

Foss said:

Nigelb said:

moonshine said:

nico679 said:

So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .

Isn’t this a security risk ?

And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?

And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .

I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…

And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…

Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?

I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.

But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.

I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better.
You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.

The Ukraine is in the situation it is in is because it traded it's nukes for words. We should take note.

Whether hanging onto it nukes was a practical possibility at the time is debatable. Though they could have restarted a nuclear program after that.
It's in the situation it is because it trusted the word of France, Germany and the US to guarantee its security. Which is why nothing short of NATO membership is going to be the basis for a peace settlement.

Ukrainian nukes would have prevented the invasion no more than Russian nukes prevented the invasion of Kursk. It worries me that sensible people think nukes deter conventional attack, they only deter nuclear attack.

We (that is Western civilisation) need a strong nuclear AND conventional deterrence. Thank God for the Poles, they’re the only thing right now standing between a British mobilisation in the next decade.

Poland is in the process of building Europe's most powerful army. Very sensibly.

rottenborough said:

moonshine said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.

How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.

Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.

How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?

"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/25/trumps-nostalgia-19th-century-tariffs-alarming-implications/

Nigel_Foremain said:

OldKingCole said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

Ooh. Just been offered a trip to Svalbard…. IN WINTER

Has anyone been? That’s gonna be COLD - but interesting

Don't be eaten by a polar bear.

It might not be that cold.

Svalbard in winter will be very cold! And you will (I think) legally be required to be accompanied by someone who is licenced in how to use a bear stopping rifle.

It'll be dark, too. 24/24

My recommendation is to go in summer for that reason. Norway above and below the arctic circle in summer is fabulous

moonshine said:

Nigelb said:

moonshine said:

Nigelb said:

moonshine said:

nico679 said:

So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .

Isn’t this a security risk ?

And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?

And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .

I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…

And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…

Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?

I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.

But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.

I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better.
You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.

I have forgotten nothing. I just don’t agree with you. Ukraine is in the position it is in because Obama / Biden / Sullivan do not understand the need for credible deterrence. “Chemical weapons are a red line”…”it depends what sort of invasion”.

If we take Bob Woodward’s version, in autumn 2022 when we were fixed on the Queen’s funeral and a lettuce, the Russian army was on the run. But Ukraine was ordered to let them escape from Kherson because Biden was scared of nuclear war.

With hindsight, Ukraine was then setup to fail in 2023 with the much much trialed counter offensive. It was being expected to cross dense mine fields with no air support for its engineers, which got picked off by Russian helicopters. At every turn, Ukraine has had one hand behind its back. Don’t forget Lend Lease expired unused. You can’t blame that on Trump.

The bill that was eventually passed this year had a requirement for the US to provide ATACMS. Because the Biden White House had refused to provide them.

In his obsession with de-escalation doctinre, Biden has forgotten that deterrence is cheaper and more effective the earlier you do it. But we are sadly now well beyond that point. There needs to be an urgent strategic rethink about how to restore credible deterrence in Europe and the Pacific. And I’m not clear how sending thousands of Ukrainians to their deaths against North Korean slaves achieves that. Will trump provide a good answer? I don’t know. Neither do you. I do know that the status quo is becoming very dangerous indeed.

FWIW, I've argued for a stronger western response since the start of the invasion. I was ridiculed by not a few posters on here (including our peripatetic aviator) for saying Biden should have sent F16s back in 2022.
So you're not telling me anything I don't already know.

I just think it completely delusional to think Trump would be anything but a disaster for the continued existence of Ukraine as an independent state.

I suspect the chances of Ukrainian remaining a fully intact independent state have realistically already gone. The US is not prepared to risk Putin suffering a humiliation. And in any case it’s quite unclear that Ukraine is capable of knitting together the ageing western kit at its disposal to turf the Russians out.

For me the question is whether Ukraine can retain what they already have. Much is made of the idea that Putin would spend a few years re-arming during a cautious peace and try again. And I’m sure he would, if Ukraine is not in NATO.

But… this neglects the fact that Ukraine would also spend that time turning itself into a fortress. Is there reason to think that after 3 years of both sides re-arming, that Ukraine would be in a significantly worse position than it is today? Perhaps the answer is yes, but I’m not averse to asking the question.

Let us not forget that the ease with which Russia made its gains in early 2022 was as much as anything to do with Ukrainian under-preparedness and the surprise factor. And perhaps even some corruption in the ranks that failed to blow key bridges at the right moment for example. Since then, this has become a war of total attrition. Which is unwinnable if Putin can alleviate degraded stockpiles of armour with a near endless supply of Korean infantry. What’s the plan if this 10k troops ends up being a vanguard for 100k to follow?

Whichever way I look at it, real politik dictates that whoever wins the US election, the war is ending soon. And not in the way most of us here would have wanted, but something much messier and equivocal.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Western Australia lost their last eight wickets for just one run in an extraordinary collapse against Tasmania in Australia's domestic 50-over competition.

The three-time defending champions reached 52-2 but were bowled out for 53 amid a flurry of wickets on a bouncy, green pitch in Perth.

The one run added came from a wide, with numbers five to 10 in the batting order all dismissed for ducks.

Tasmania seamer Beau Webster took 6-17 and fast bowler Billy Stanlake 3-12. Tasmania chased their target in 8.3 overs for a seven-wicket win.

The collapse was made more remarkable by the fact all 11 of Western Australia's XI were Australia internationals.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c98e148524po

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

moonshine said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.

How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.

Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.

It’s quite astonishing that three consecutive US elections can each have the two worst candidates of all time, but somehow the Americans have managed to do it.

Hopefully both parties find some sensibles for 2028.

Depends how you define 'worst' McGovern and Goldwater were both trounced far more than Hillary, Trump and Harris were or will be and of course Biden won in 2020

My point was that both candidates are and were the worst, leaving 300m Americans the choice of Alien or Predator. For three elections running.

Another Reagan or Obama would get a 50-state result today.

rottenborough said:

moonshine said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.

How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.

Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.

How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?



"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/25/trumps-nostalgia-19th-century-tariffs-alarming-implications/

kjh said:

moonshine said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

SouthamObserver said:

The famously woke and anti-Trump Wall Street Journal has clearly invented the story about Elon Musk being in regular contact with Vladimir Putin. The fact that Musk shares Putin's entire values system is entirely coincidental. He is a far better engineer, though.

We know musk is in regular contact with Putin because he TOLD us about a year ago when he was floating ideas for a Ukrainian peace

Similarly, several Russian oligarchs - like Abramovich - are talking to the west even as they obey Putin

This is how diplomacy works. Powerful individuals can often act as go-betweens

Otherwise how would peace ever get discussed? Next

You say 'peace'; if he's talking to Putin alone, then it'll be 'surrender' they're discussing. Ukrainian surrender, that is.

It's like Corbyn talking to the IRA etc in terms of 'peace', If you're talking to only one side, then you're not talking peace. You're talking their side. Worse, these publicity-seeking idiots who go about trying to negotiate 'peace' without the explicit or implicit say-so of their government often make matters worse by disrupting other negotiations.

A serious question. What would you do regarding Russia / Ukraine if you were in charge? Do you think the current “strategy” is a good one?

No, we should be providing more and better arms so this stalemate can be ended and so the Russian occupation can be ended. Then we might get peace. Currently people are dying needlessly on both sides and it would be a disaster to let Russia take Ukraine or even part of it. We should stop this half hearted support and put Putin back in his box. With any luck that might also have the result of Putin losing his power in Russia and Luckashenko being removed in Belarus and reverting to a democracy.

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Latest from Conhome confirming Badenoch retains her lead over Jenrick

https://conservativehome.com/2024/10/25/badenoch-maintains-her-lead-in-our-final-leadership-survey/

Kemi would be an interesting choice but I suspect Farage would be the man most pleased with that choice in terms of the final 2.

Electoral Calculus had a poll out with a Badenoch led Tories on 22% just 1% ahead of Farage's Reform on 21%, Labour were on 29% and the LDs on 12%.

Whereas under Jenrick the Tories were unchanged on the GE on 23% with Reform on 20%, Labour on 28% and the LDs also on 12%
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_hypopoll_20241017.html

OldKingCole said:

moonshine said:

Nigelb said:

moonshine said:

Nigelb said:

moonshine said:

nico679 said:

So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .

Isn’t this a security risk ?

And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?

And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .

I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…

And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…

Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?

I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.

But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.

I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better.
You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.

I have forgotten nothing. I just don’t agree with you. Ukraine is in the position it is in because Obama / Biden / Sullivan do not understand the need for credible deterrence. “Chemical weapons are a red line”…”it depends what sort of invasion”.

If we take Bob Woodward’s version, in autumn 2022 when we were fixed on the Queen’s funeral and a lettuce, the Russian army was on the run. But Ukraine was ordered to let them escape from Kherson because Biden was scared of nuclear war.

With hindsight, Ukraine was then setup to fail in 2023 with the much much trialed counter offensive. It was being expected to cross dense mine fields with no air support for its engineers, which got picked off by Russian helicopters. At every turn, Ukraine has had one hand behind its back. Don’t forget Lend Lease expired unused. You can’t blame that on Trump.

The bill that was eventually passed this year had a requirement for the US to provide ATACMS. Because the Biden White House had refused to provide them.

In his obsession with de-escalation doctinre, Biden has forgotten that deterrence is cheaper and more effective the earlier you do it. But we are sadly now well beyond that point. There needs to be an urgent strategic rethink about how to restore credible deterrence in Europe and the Pacific. And I’m not clear how sending thousands of Ukrainians to their deaths against North Korean slaves achieves that. Will trump provide a good answer? I don’t know. Neither do you. I do know that the status quo is becoming very dangerous indeed.

FWIW, I've argued for a stronger western response since the start of the invasion. I was ridiculed by not a few posters on here (including our peripatetic aviator) for saying Biden should have sent F16s back in 2022.
So you're not telling me anything I don't already know.

I just think it completely delusional to think Trump would be anything but a disaster for the continued existence of Ukraine as an independent state.

I suspect the chances of Ukrainian remaining a fully intact independent state have realistically already gone. The US is not prepared to risk Putin suffering a humiliation. And in any case it’s quite unclear that Ukraine is capable of knitting together the ageing western kit at its disposal to turf the Russians out.

For me the question is whether Ukraine can retain what they already have. Much is made of the idea that Putin would spend a few years re-arming during a cautious peace and try again. And I’m sure he would, if Ukraine is not in NATO.

But… this neglects the fact that Ukraine would also spend that time turning itself into a fortress. Is there reason to think that after 3 years of both sides re-arming, that Ukraine would be in a significantly worse position than it is today? Perhaps the answer is yes, but I’m not averse to asking the question.

Let us not forget that the ease with which Russia made its gains in early 2022 was as much as anything to do with Ukrainian under-preparedness and the surprise factor. And perhaps even some corruption in the ranks that failed to blow key bridges at the right moment for example. Since then, this has become a war of total attrition. Which is unwinnable if Putin can alleviate degraded stockpiles of armour with a near endless supply of Korean infantry. What’s the plan if this 10k troops ends up being a vanguard for 100k to follow?

Whichever way I look at it, real politik dictates that whoever wins the US election, the war is ending soon. And not in the way most of us here would have wanted, but something much messier and equivocal.

Side-tracking a bit, I know, but if North Korea commits much/most of it's army to the Ukraine War, doesn't leave an opportunity for South Korea? And would China come to the North's aid as in the early '50's?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Western Australia lost their last eight wickets for just one run in an extraordinary collapse against Tasmania in Australia's domestic 50-over competition.

The three-time defending champions reached 52-2 but were bowled out for 53 amid a flurry of wickets on a bouncy, green pitch in Perth.

The one run added came from a wide, with numbers five to 10 in the batting order all dismissed for ducks.

Tasmania seamer Beau Webster took 6-17 and fast bowler Billy Stanlake 3-12. Tasmania chased their target in 8.3 overs for a seven-wicket win.

The collapse was made more remarkable by the fact all 11 of Western Australia's XI were Australia internationals.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/articles/c98e148524po

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

moonshine said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.

How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.

Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.

How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?



"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/25/trumps-nostalgia-19th-century-tariffs-alarming-implications/

McKinley was assassinated a few months into his second term.

Scott_xP said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

moonshine said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.

How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.

Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.

How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?

"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/25/trumps-nostalgia-19th-century-tariffs-alarming-implications/

Shame he never learned about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression.
Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.

According to the TSE piece Trump doesn't even know that McKinley lost his seat in the ensuing economic depression and changed his mind completely on tariffs.

As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.

I saw somewhere, it may have been here, that some people are voting for Donny because "although he might be a fascist" he "has a good business brain"...

Tariffs

another_richard said:

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

moonshine said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.

How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.

Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.

How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?



"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/25/trumps-nostalgia-19th-century-tariffs-alarming-implications/

McKinley was assassinated a few months into his second term.

And for all those who think that the SC would overturn a Harris win, well any SC judge who votes to do so would be on a kill list for a lot of angry people.

And in the USA its easy to get a gun.

Malmesbury said:

another_richard said:

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

moonshine said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.

How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.

Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.

How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?



"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/25/trumps-nostalgia-19th-century-tariffs-alarming-implications/

McKinley was assassinated a few months into his second term.

And for all those who think that the SC would overturn a Harris win, well any SC judge who votes to do so would be on a kill list for a lot of angry people.

And in the USA its easy to get a gun.

Aside from anything else, the SC justices are already considered to be under massive level of threat.

OldKingCole said:

kjh said:

moonshine said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leon said:

SouthamObserver said:

The famously woke and anti-Trump Wall Street Journal has clearly invented the story about Elon Musk being in regular contact with Vladimir Putin. The fact that Musk shares Putin's entire values system is entirely coincidental. He is a far better engineer, though.

We know musk is in regular contact with Putin because he TOLD us about a year ago when he was floating ideas for a Ukrainian peace

Similarly, several Russian oligarchs - like Abramovich - are talking to the west even as they obey Putin

This is how diplomacy works. Powerful individuals can often act as go-betweens

Otherwise how would peace ever get discussed? Next

You say 'peace'; if he's talking to Putin alone, then it'll be 'surrender' they're discussing. Ukrainian surrender, that is.

It's like Corbyn talking to the IRA etc in terms of 'peace', If you're talking to only one side, then you're not talking peace. You're talking their side. Worse, these publicity-seeking idiots who go about trying to negotiate 'peace' without the explicit or implicit say-so of their government often make matters worse by disrupting other negotiations.

A serious question. What would you do regarding Russia / Ukraine if you were in charge? Do you think the current “strategy” is a good one?

No, we should be providing more and better arms so this stalemate can be ended and so the Russian occupation can be ended. Then we might get peace. Currently people are dying needlessly on both sides and it would be a disaster to let Russia take Ukraine or even part of it. We should stop this half hearted support and put Putin back in his box. With any luck that might also have the result of Putin losing his power in Russia and Luckashenko being removed in Belarus and reverting to a democracy.

Isn't there an issue about numbers of men, though? Which is why the Russians are resorting to all sorts of methods to increase their manpower, which the Ukrainians are largely 'restricted' to local men.
How long before Kyiv has to start calling up women?

Sean_F said:

bondegezou said:

Sean_F said:

bondegezou said:

Sean_F said:

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

Leon said:

Startling fact from Unherd


“The Brics countries are now a larger part of the global economy than the G7 countries. According to EY, Brics makes up around 36.7% of the global economy on a purchasing power parity basis while the G7 makes up only 27.5%.”

https://unherd.com/newsroom/brics-pay-threatens-the-western-financial-system/

They are a pile of shit though, not one of them you would want to visit unless you were at gunpoint.

But that's the game they're now playing at, chipping away at the Commonwealth whilst it itself takes potshots at us - all being funded by China - whilst we cry into our soup at how awful and terrible we are (spoiler: we're not)

Unless we man up and recognise we're in a new age of hard power politics of iron and fire we'll be eaten alive and end up a vassal stage with less freedom and less prosperity.

China, Russia, India, Israel, the USA, France, all play according to big boys’ rules. They aren’t impressed by handwringing or apologies. They don’t agonise over the past. Our own leaders are simply abject.

Do you want the UK to be more like Russia and Israel? Should we invade Ireland? Or more like China?

What I would like is for the UK’s political class to wake up to the fact that the world is a cold, hard, place; that no country of any significance gives a damn about human rights or international law if these things conflict with reason of state. That nobody is impressed because you give apologies for the past. That relations between states are mostly transactional.

None of those things are true. Ideas of human rights, while contested in detail, are widespread in the most significant countries in the world. Most countries follow international law most of the time. Relations between states often reflect long-standing ties of culture and trade. Apologies can help heal divisions.

Is Russia a better place because they’re playing “according to big boys’ rules”? Is Israel? Is China?

No, they aren’t better places, but your error is to think that rival powers will be impressed by your values. They will not.

rottenborough said:

moonshine said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.

How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.

Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.

How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?



"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/25/trumps-nostalgia-19th-century-tariffs-alarming-implications/

LostPassword said:

moonshine said:

Nigelb said:

moonshine said:

Nigelb said:

moonshine said:

nico679 said:

So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .

Isn’t this a security risk ?

And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?

And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .

I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…

And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…

Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?

I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.

But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.

I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better.
You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.

I have forgotten nothing. I just don’t agree with you. Ukraine is in the position it is in because Obama / Biden / Sullivan do not understand the need for credible deterrence. “Chemical weapons are a red line”…”it depends what sort of invasion”.

If we take Bob Woodward’s version, in autumn 2022 when we were fixed on the Queen’s funeral and a lettuce, the Russian army was on the run. But Ukraine was ordered to let them escape from Kherson because Biden was scared of nuclear war.

With hindsight, Ukraine was then setup to fail in 2023 with the much much trialed counter offensive. It was being expected to cross dense mine fields with no air support for its engineers, which got picked off by Russian helicopters. At every turn, Ukraine has had one hand behind its back. Don’t forget Lend Lease expired unused. You can’t blame that on Trump.

The bill that was eventually passed this year had a requirement for the US to provide ATACMS. Because the Biden White House had refused to provide them.

In his obsession with de-escalation doctinre, Biden has forgotten that deterrence is cheaper and more effective the earlier you do it. But we are sadly now well beyond that point. There needs to be an urgent strategic rethink about how to restore credible deterrence in Europe and the Pacific. And I’m not clear how sending thousands of Ukrainians to their deaths against North Korean slaves achieves that. Will trump provide a good answer? I don’t know. Neither do you. I do know that the status quo is becoming very dangerous indeed.

FWIW, I've argued for a stronger western response since the start of the invasion. I was ridiculed by not a few posters on here (including our peripatetic aviator) for saying Biden should have sent F16s back in 2022.
So you're not telling me anything I don't already know.

I just think it completely delusional to think Trump would be anything but a disaster for the continued existence of Ukraine as an independent state.

I suspect the chances of Ukrainian remaining a fully intact independent state have realistically already gone. The US is not prepared to risk Putin suffering a humiliation. And in any case it’s quite unclear that Ukraine is capable of knitting together the ageing western kit at its disposal to turf the Russians out.

For me the question is whether Ukraine can retain what they already have. Much is made of the idea that Putin would spend a few years re-arming during a cautious peace and try again. And I’m sure he would, if Ukraine is not in NATO.

But… this neglects the fact that Ukraine would also spend that time turning itself into a fortress. Is there reason to think that after 3 years of both sides re-arming, that Ukraine would be in a significantly worse position than it is today? Perhaps the answer is yes, but I’m not averse to asking the question.

Let us not forget that the ease with which Russia made its gains in early 2022 was as much as anything to do with Ukrainian under-preparedness and the surprise factor. And perhaps even some corruption in the ranks that failed to blow key bridges at the right moment for example. Since then, this has become a war of total attrition. Which is unwinnable if Putin can alleviate degraded stockpiles of armour with a near endless supply of Korean infantry. What’s the plan if this 10k troops ends up being a vanguard for 100k to follow?

Whichever way I look at it, real politik dictates that whoever wins the US election, the war is ending soon. And not in the way most of us here would have wanted, but something much messier and equivocal.

It's possible that a ceasefire works to Ukraine's advantage. It could end up being the Croatia scenario, as I've mentioned before, where Croatia spent a few years preparing itself and then managed to push the Serbs out.

But to do so it would require massive continuing support from the West - in military equipment, financial and economic support. So, pretty much the same sort of requirement from the West as if the war continues.

Unfortunately, an the indications are that Western politician see the prospect of a ceasefire as an opportunity to reduce support for Ukraine. That they view a possible temporary deal as actually permanent and grooms for a rapprochement with Russia. So I have more confidence that Ukraine will receive support from the West if the war continues and there isn't a ceasefire.

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

moonshine said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.

How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.

Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.

How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?

"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/25/trumps-nostalgia-19th-century-tariffs-alarming-implications/

Shame he never learned about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression.
Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.

According to the TSE piece Trump doesn't even know that McKinley lost his seat in the ensuing economic depression and changed his mind completely on tariffs.

As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.

rottenborough said:

kjh said:

Scott_xP said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

moonshine said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.

How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.

Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.

How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?

"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/25/trumps-nostalgia-19th-century-tariffs-alarming-implications/

Shame he never learned about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression.
Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.

According to the TSE piece Trump doesn't even know that McKinley lost his seat in the ensuing economic depression and changed his mind completely on tariffs.

As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.

I saw somewhere, it may have been here, that some people are voting for Donny because "although he might be a fascist" he "has a good business brain"...

Tariffs

For me the thing that damns him most regarding business is his view of a deal is a win/lose result whereas a good deal is always a win/win. A win/lose might look good, but it always comes back to bite you and taints all future negotiations. Nobody is going to voluntarily deal with you in future unless they are desperate or looking to get one over on you in return.

Of course for a con artist or fraudster the best deal is always a win/lose.

I read the other day - can't recall where - that the TV producer of the Apprentice has come forward to say 'sorry' because basically they invented Trump the myth that he is this super business brain. It was all tosh. They made it all up. He was a struggling real estate guy when they started. His office was so crap they had to build a special set.

Sandpit said:

50 partnership for an 8th wicket is a poor showing from the bowlers.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Latest from Conhome confirming Badenoch retains her lead over Jenrick

https://conservativehome.com/2024/10/25/badenoch-maintains-her-lead-in-our-final-leadership-survey/

Kemi would be an interesting choice but I suspect Farage would be the man most pleased with that choice in terms of the final 2.

Electoral Calculus had a poll out with a Badenoch led Tories on 22% just 1% ahead of Farage's Reform on 21%, Labour were on 29% and the LDs on 12%.

Whereas under Jenrick the Tories were unchanged on the GE on 23% with Reform on 20%, Labour on 28% and the LDs also on 12%
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/blogs/ec_hypopoll_20241017.html

You say Farage but remember Boris sees himself as the king across the water.

Nigelb said:

moonshine said:

Nigelb said:

moonshine said:

Nigelb said:

moonshine said:

nico679 said:

So Musk who has US government contracts has been having secret conversations with Putin .

Isn’t this a security risk ?

And how much more power will Musk yield if Trump wins?

And yet some clueless Tory politicians continue to allegedly support Ukraine whilst at the same time want Trump to win .

I am desperate for the people of Ukraine to be free of Russian tyranny and for Putin to be put back in his box. But I honestly have no idea what the US Democrats plan is to favourably end this war. Foot dragging on military equipment, restrictive rules of engagement, laughable energy sanctions etc…

And with each few months that pass, the world casually crosses once unthinkable thresholds into an ever more dangerous place. US and European tanks invading Russia. North Korean infantry invading Europe. Russia and Iran effectively shutting the Suez. Israel and Iran in direct conflict etc…

Is anyone still credibly talking about Ukraine retaking Crimea? Or even making it through the impossibly dense minefields between their forces and the coast? After the debacles of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc… would it shock you to discover there is no coherent US strategy or goal?

I’m not thrilled about trump’s solution either, because it doesn’t work unless Ukraine is admitted to NATO, which seems highly unlikely to clear the string of vetoes (including his). And in of itself does nothing to deter Chinese imperialism, actually the opposite.

But I rather think we’re beyond the point of assuming that the continuation of the current US administration is unequivocally better for our long term security. There’s rather more to it.

I think that, however imperfect, it is unequivocally better.
You have somehow forgotten that Ukraine is in the tactical situation it now is thanks to a full six month delay in US aid, courtesy of Trump and his poodle in Congress, Mike Johnson.

I have forgotten nothing. I just don’t agree with you. Ukraine is in the position it is in because Obama / Biden / Sullivan do not understand the need for credible deterrence. “Chemical weapons are a red line”…”it depends what sort of invasion”.

If we take Bob Woodward’s version, in autumn 2022 when we were fixed on the Queen’s funeral and a lettuce, the Russian army was on the run. But Ukraine was ordered to let them escape from Kherson because Biden was scared of nuclear war.

With hindsight, Ukraine was then setup to fail in 2023 with the much much trialed counter offensive. It was being expected to cross dense mine fields with no air support for its engineers, which got picked off by Russian helicopters. At every turn, Ukraine has had one hand behind its back. Don’t forget Lend Lease expired unused. You can’t blame that on Trump.

The bill that was eventually passed this year had a requirement for the US to provide ATACMS. Because the Biden White House had refused to provide them.

In his obsession with de-escalation doctinre, Biden has forgotten that deterrence is cheaper and more effective the earlier you do it. But we are sadly now well beyond that point. There needs to be an urgent strategic rethink about how to restore credible deterrence in Europe and the Pacific. And I’m not clear how sending thousands of Ukrainians to their deaths against North Korean slaves achieves that. Will trump provide a good answer? I don’t know. Neither do you. I do know that the status quo is becoming very dangerous indeed.

FWIW, I've argued for a stronger western response since the start of the invasion. I was ridiculed by not a few posters on here (including our peripatetic aviator) for saying Biden should have sent F16s back in 2022.
So you're not telling me anything I don't already know.

I just think it completely delusional to think Trump would be anything but a disaster for the continued existence of Ukraine as an independent state.

I suspect the chances of Ukrainian remaining a fully intact independent state have realistically already gone. The US is not prepared to risk Putin suffering a humiliation. And in any case it’s quite unclear that Ukraine is capable of knitting together the ageing western kit at its disposal to turf the Russians out.

For me the question is whether Ukraine can retain what they already have. Much is made of the idea that Putin would spend a few years re-arming during a cautious peace and try again. And I’m sure he would, if Ukraine is not in NATO.

But… this neglects the fact that Ukraine would also spend that time turning itself into a fortress. Is there reason to think that after 3 years of both sides re-arming, that Ukraine would be in a significantly worse position than it is today? Perhaps the answer is yes, but I’m not averse to asking the question.

Let us not forget that the ease with which Russia made its gains in early 2022 was as much as anything to do with Ukrainian under-preparedness and the surprise factor. And perhaps even some corruption in the ranks that failed to blow key bridges at the right moment for example. Since then, this has become a war of total attrition. Which is unwinnable if Putin can alleviate degraded stockpiles of armour with a near endless supply of Korean infantry. What’s the plan if this 10k troops ends up being a vanguard for 100k to follow?

Whichever way I look at it, real politik dictates that whoever wins the US election, the war is ending soon. And not in the way most of us here would have wanted, but something much messier and equivocal.

The only way it end is with security guarantees for Ukraine (ie NATO membership) - otherwise it's just a pause.
And Putin won't accept that.

RochdalePioneers said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

DavidL said:

The Truss episode seems ever more surreal in hindsight, conclusive proof that the Tory hegemony was coming to an end. It is worse than the 45 days that she survived as PM. The Tory membership listened to that bat shit insanity over months and thought, "yes, we'll have some of that." Conclusive proof that they were not fit to govern.

I feel a bit sorry for Sunak. If the Conservative party membership had chosen him instead I think his Premiership would have been different but it was constantly overshadowed by the Truss fiasco. And now the members are being given another second or even third rate choice. The future existence of the Tories as a major player in UK politics is by no means assured.

Yawn. Zero analysis, just asinine repetition of Labour talking points.

In what way are they “Labour talking points?” They are *everyone other than you* talking points. This is politics - you have to be able to perceive your position via the majority or you are sunk.

It isn’t David’s fault that he is a Tory supporter with political antennae and you don’t have them.

rottenborough said:

kjh said:

Scott_xP said:

rottenborough said:

Nigelb said:

rottenborough said:

moonshine said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.

How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.

Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.

How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?

"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/25/trumps-nostalgia-19th-century-tariffs-alarming-implications/

Shame he never learned about Smoot-Hawley, and the Great Depression.
Though it also assisted Hitler's ascent, so maybe he'd still be in favour.

According to the TSE piece Trump doesn't even know that McKinley lost his seat in the ensuing economic depression and changed his mind completely on tariffs.

As @rcs1000 pointed out yesterday - it is just laugh loud ironic that Trump Cult are voting for him because he will beat inflation.

I saw somewhere, it may have been here, that some people are voting for Donny because "although he might be a fascist" he "has a good business brain"...

Tariffs

For me the thing that damns him most regarding business is his view of a deal is a win/lose result whereas a good deal is always a win/win. A win/lose might look good, but it always comes back to bite you and taints all future negotiations. Nobody is going to voluntarily deal with you in future unless they are desperate or looking to get one over on you in return.

Of course for a con artist or fraudster the best deal is always a win/lose.

I read the other day - can't recall where - that the TV producer of the Apprentice has come forward to say 'sorry' because basically they invented Trump the myth that he is this super business brain. It was all tosh. They made it all up. He was a struggling real estate guy when they started. His office was so crap they had to build a special set.

JohnO said:

O/T I was distraught, bordering on full nervous collapse, at not having received Nigel Farage's promised personalised email urging defection to Reform.

So, imagine how tears of sorrow turned to those of joy, when I discovered that it was resting in the spam folder, along with Muslim News and crap from Robert Jenrick (voted for Kemi yesterday).

And there, brothers and sisters, it shall remain until I can summon enough energy to delete the bloody thing. All is right with the world.

SouthamObserver said:

another_richard said:

another_richard said:

rottenborough said:

moonshine said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Trump would be such a disaster (again) for the US.

How not every PBer can see that, is baffling.

Why do you think not every PBer can see that? The question with this election is which candidate would be the lesser disaster. I still feel like I don’t have a good answer, it’s all bad choices at this point.

How about that one of them is going to implode the world economy?



"Donald Trump has a mystical fixation with tariffs. His pin-up idol is the forgotten champion of 19th-century protection, William McKinley."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/25/trumps-nostalgia-19th-century-tariffs-alarming-implications/

McKinley was assassinated a few months into his second term.

And for all those who think that the SC would overturn a Harris win, well any SC judge who votes to do so would be on a kill list for a lot of angry people.

And in the USA its easy to get a gun.

They'd also be on a kill list if they didn't.