I am unconvinced by the header. Where is the evidence for any of these claims? For example, Walz is repeatedly criticised in the piece, but his favourability polling was better than Harris’s, Vance’s or Trump’s.
“Trump held a 12-point advantage among the 2024 electorate on the state of the national economy (40 percent more of a reason to support Harris – 52 percent more of a reason to support Trump) and a 13-point advantage on the level of inflation (52 percent) than more of a reason to support Harris (39 percent). Among “swing voters” — those who did not rule out voting for Trump or Harris from the start of the campaign, and whom Trump won by 8 points — Trump held a 39-point advantage on the level of inflation being more of a reason to support him (23 percent more of a reason to support Harris – 62 percent more of a reason to support Trump) and a 37-point advantage on the state of the national economy being more of a reason to support him (24 percent more of a reason to support Harris – 61 percent more of a reason to support Trump).”
The header has a lot of interesting ideas, but they're all somewhat second order compared to the economy (and more importantly, individual economic circumstances), which it disposes of in a sentence. And as you point out, you could quite easily argue the opposite of most of them.
I suspect all of that, though, is pretty pointless until we see what the new administration does.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
FFS, the last thing the world needs is Musk investing in weaponry any larger than flamethrowers...
This, though, is set to be consequential (whether effective or otherwise).
Biggest overhaul of local government in over 50 years - Dozens of councils abolished to make more "efficient" large authorities with populations of 500k+ - First wave of restructuring includes Essex, Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.. https://x.com/MaxKendix/status/1860810593835286739
Still on theme with the 1970s redux, of course.
Could see the county council elections cancelled in those areas then unless the unitary boundaries agreed by next May
I am unconvinced by the header. Where is the evidence for any of these claims? For example, Walz is repeatedly criticised in the piece, but his favourability polling was better than Harris’s, Vance’s or Trump’s.
“Trump held a 12-point advantage among the 2024 electorate on the state of the national economy (40 percent more of a reason to support Harris – 52 percent more of a reason to support Trump) and a 13-point advantage on the level of inflation (52 percent) than more of a reason to support Harris (39 percent). Among “swing voters” — those who did not rule out voting for Trump or Harris from the start of the campaign, and whom Trump won by 8 points — Trump held a 39-point advantage on the level of inflation being more of a reason to support him (23 percent more of a reason to support Harris – 62 percent more of a reason to support Trump) and a 37-point advantage on the state of the national economy being more of a reason to support him (24 percent more of a reason to support Harris – 61 percent more of a reason to support Trump).”
Lest we forget, Harris lost by a fair bit less than other incumbents who have faced their electorates this year. In part, that's down to the polarisation in America, but it also says "impossible wicket" more than "bad batting" or "brilliant bowling".
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
Good news for Zelensky but I can't see Putin accepting terms dictated to him that don't see large amounts of Ukraine in Russian hands
It will likely be a division of Ukraine roughly where the front lines are now. Is my guess. So it’s not good news for Zelensky - but it is good news for tens of thousands of Ukrainians who won’t die in an endless war. IF IF IF it happens
In a way that makes it worse. Labour haven't brought in any fresh thinking so they're reduced to re-announcing things the previous government didn't get around to doing.
Makes a change from governments re-announcing things that they themselves haven't got round to doing.
Good article. Certainly at the next presidential election the Democrats need a candidate who is not as woke and sees abortion as a last resort not a first choice and will not alienate rural and suburban voters as much as Harris. Shapiro or Buttigieg would be good. The former from a rustbelt state, the latter a Midwest state.
They should not ignore the economy though. For while it hit them this time as they were the incumbents next time in the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election the Democrats will be the opposition party. If prices are rising due to Trump's tariffs they could exploit that
Abortion is interesting, the Democrats hoped that SCOTUS putting Roe back to the states would help their cause. And it has been put back to the states with referenda generally favouring loosening of the positions which has helped the GOP cause taking the issue out of choices for say the presidency. Trump isn't actually particularly anti-abortion by GOP standards, his public musings are not dissimilar to Ronald Reagan which is more pro choice than most non Trump GOP I think.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
FFS, the last thing the world needs is Musk investing in weaponry any larger than flamethrowers...
Surely we’ve got to allow him sharks with frickin laser beams?
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
I’ve argued all along that Trump MIGHT be better for Ukraine (and maybe even Gaza). He’s inherently unpredictable. We just don’t know. That will unnerve Putin
But this is a big “if” and a big “might”
So essentially you’re saying he might surprise on the upside?
Given that this is Donald Trump, isn’t “surprising on the upside” kinda inevitable?
Yes.
If at the end of four years:
1. There is a free and fair election, won by the Democratic nominee, to whom there is a peaceful transfer of power. 2. There is not a global economic crisis precipitated by a Trump trade war. 3. Russia do not occupy Kharkiv.
Then the second Trump Presidency will have surprised on the upside. I don't think it's a high bar, but I have reasonable fears on all three counts.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
Or - Putin calls bluff, agrees the ceasefire. And re-invades a month later.
The owner and his wife are wonderful people trying to preserve a great historical landmark of Essex. Just about managing at the moment with tourists and weddings etc but thanks to this awful, philistine socialist government's changes to Business Property Relief that task has become a lot harder. The Telegraph article is spot on
This, though, is set to be consequential (whether effective or otherwise).
Biggest overhaul of local government in over 50 years - Dozens of councils abolished to make more "efficient" large authorities with populations of 500k+ - First wave of restructuring includes Essex, Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.. https://x.com/MaxKendix/status/1860810593835286739
Still on theme with the 1970s redux, of course.
I wonder if we’ll finally get a Greater Birmingham and a Greater Newcastle.
I'll be manning the barricades on the Tyne Bridge if there is any attempt by the Novocastrians to invade The Heed!
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
Or - Putin calls bluff, agrees the ceasefire. And re-invades a month later.
Good article. Certainly at the next presidential election the Democrats need a candidate who is not as woke and sees abortion as a last resort not a first choice and will not alienate rural and suburban voters as much as Harris. Shapiro or Buttigieg would be good. The former from a rustbelt state, the latter a Midwest state.
They should not ignore the economy though. For while it hit them this time as they were the incumbents next time in the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election the Democrats will be the opposition party. If prices are rising due to Trump's tariffs they could exploit that
We've seen everywhere (including here) what post-Covid inflation has done for the popularity of incumbent Governments so perhaps it would have been impossible for the Democrats irrespective of who their candidate had been.
2026 and 2028 could be very different - as we are now seeing, the successor Governments aren't finding it easy either so will we see a return of the previous party (under new leadership) or will dissatisfied voters look for other solutions in other places?
It's going to be fascinating to see how this goes - as an example, Norway votes next September. The Conservatives lost to a coalition of the Social Democrats and Centre Party in 2021 but soon established big poll leads in Opposition. However, the latest polls show them running behind the Progress Party (Reform). From 2013-20 Progress was the junior partner in the Conservative led Government of Ema Solberg but on current polling Progress would win more seats and the Conservatives would be the junior partner.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
Good news for Zelensky but I can't see Putin accepting terms dictated to him that don't see large amounts of Ukraine in Russian hands
It will likely be a division of Ukraine roughly where the front lines are now. Is my guess. So it’s not good news for Zelensky - but it is good news for tens of thousands of Ukrainians who won’t die in an endless war. IF IF IF it happens
No, it won't be good news for tens of thousands of Ukrainians - as Putin will just regroup and attack again. ISTR that Putin has said as much, and he has made his desires on the territory he expects to gain *very* clear.
Remember that Putin has several attack vectors. First is via political interests, often using bots, shills, agents and useful idiots. Second may be via corruption of people in 'enemy' countries, sabotage, etc. I fear we are seeing more of this atm. Physically attacking them is only the last resort.
*If* Putin accepts a ceasefire on current lines, he will work to destroy the consensus in the west that enables Ukraine to keep those lines.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
30,000 troops for a ceasefire line 155 miles long half way down the Korean peninsula.
The Ukraine-Russia land border is 1226 miles long. The Ukraine Belarus land border is a further 674 miles long, through which Russia invaded last time.
And that's before we may add Crimea to the ceasefire line. Or the 759 miles of the Ukraine-Transnistria border if we are being comprehensive.
My (and the rest of us?) concerns are that that is exactly what a clueless narcissist like Mr Trump might do.
The owner and his wife are wonderful people trying to preserve a great historical landmark of Essex. Just about managing at the moment with tourists and weddings etc but thanks to this awful, philistine socialist government's changes to Business Property Relief that task has become a lot harder. The Telegraph article is spot on
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
Good news for Zelensky but I can't see Putin accepting terms dictated to him that don't see large amounts of Ukraine in Russian hands
It will likely be a division of Ukraine roughly where the front lines are now. Is my guess. So it’s not good news for Zelensky - but it is good news for tens of thousands of Ukrainians who won’t die in an endless war. IF IF IF it happens
Then Zelensky as well as Putin might reject such terms
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
Or - Putin calls bluff, agrees the ceasefire. And re-invades a month later.
I genuinely don’t think Putin would risk that against Trump
Remember Trump asked his aides if he could nuke a hurricane
Trump truly is the “madman theory” being fully tested
A good header, thanks Gareth. But I do think that the economy was the main reason the Democrats lost, and I wouldn't place all the blame on the Fed, although their slowness to hike rates was a contributor to high inflation. The 2021 stimulus package was too big and contributed to high inflation. But Covid created a difficult economic situation and we've seen a wave of anti-incumbency as a result. The Democrats also allowed themselves to be seen as the party of the economic establishment, and there is a strong underlying sense of anger at economic elites and an economy that doesn't work for most people. The reality is that the Republicans are at least as much the party of big business and I think voters will figure that out in the next four years. Trump's proposed solution - deregulation, further fiscal profligacy, tariffs and mass deportations - won't deliver the results dome of his supporters are hoping for.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
It would essentially mean gutting Trump’s long-term stated aim of forcing Europe to up their defence budgets and his not so stated aim of dumping NATO. Even Trumpol has to balance conflicting outcomes.
It's a possibility. Trump's chain of logic would have to go something like this, I reckon.
1. Russian defeat in the Ukraine is a good thing. 2. It's so good that Biden and co must be denied that success. 3. So stop Biden supporting Ukraine. 4. Then, once I'm back on my rightful place, turn the taps on full.
Doing the right thing for selfish narcissistic reasons is still doing the right thing. And sometimes, it's the only way to get the right thing done.
Alternatively, Gorka is another victim of the Trump hustle. Assuming that Trump doesn't really mean the thing Trump has repeatedly said that ought to have ruled him out. There's quite a bit of it about.
I've argued that the key inflection point in the Biden Presidency was the Fall of Kabul. It was a humiliation for America and it made Biden look weak.
It is possible that a Ukrainian victory against Russia, with US support, would have ameliorated much of that damage. So I don't think your chain of logic is impossible.
But Trump has so much evident admiration for Putin, that I'm not convinced he wants to defeat him.
Good article. Certainly at the next presidential election the Democrats need a candidate who is not as woke and sees abortion as a last resort not a first choice and will not alienate rural and suburban voters as much as Harris. Shapiro or Buttigieg would be good. The former from a rustbelt state, the latter a Midwest state.
They should not ignore the economy though. For while it hit them this time as they were the incumbents next time in the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election the Democrats will be the opposition party. If prices are rising due to Trump's tariffs they could exploit that
Abortion is interesting, the Democrats hoped that SCOTUS putting Roe back to the states would help their cause. And it has been put back to the states with referenda generally favouring loosening of the positions which has helped the GOP cause taking the issue out of choices for say the presidency. Trump isn't actually particularly anti-abortion by GOP standards, his public musings are not dissimilar to Ronald Reagan which is more pro choice than most non Trump GOP I think.
It was the economy that won Trump and Republicans the election and lost it for Harris and the Democrats. Abortion didn't make the difference for either side. Statewide different states have voted for different positions, not alll for loosening. Florida voted for tighter immigration restrictions
This, though, is set to be consequential (whether effective or otherwise).
Biggest overhaul of local government in over 50 years - Dozens of councils abolished to make more "efficient" large authorities with populations of 500k+ - First wave of restructuring includes Essex, Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.. https://x.com/MaxKendix/status/1860810593835286739
Still on theme with the 1970s redux, of course.
Could see the county council elections cancelled in those areas then unless the unitary boundaries agreed by next May
That's an intriguing thought, when the County's are mainly Conservatives, and they are expected (I think) to be on the way down.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
30,000 troops for a ceasefire line 155 miles long half way down the Korean peninsula.
The Ukraine-Russia land border is 1226 miles long. The Ukraine Belarus land border is a further 674 miles long, through which Russia invaded last time.
And that's before we may add Crimea to the ceasefire line. Or the 759 miles of the Ukraine-Transnistria border if we are being comprehensive.
My (and the rest of us?) concerns are that that is exactly what a clueless narcissist like Mr Trump might do.
But the big difference is that right behind Ukraine you’ve got all of NATO and its three nuclear powers. That’s a hefty deterrent in itself
Korea has no nukes and is the vulnerable southern end of a peninsula - with only the sea beyond
If Trump says to the European half of NATO “you’ve got the men and the money, it’s now your job to defend Ukraine” he’d be correct on all points
Whatever happens European defence budgets are going up
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
I think Musk is a #### but those criticising him over Ukraine need to consider how transformative Starlink was for fighting the Russians.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
Good news for Zelensky but I can't see Putin accepting terms dictated to him that don't see large amounts of Ukraine in Russian hands
It will likely be a division of Ukraine roughly where the front lines are now. Is my guess. So it’s not good news for Zelensky - but it is good news for tens of thousands of Ukrainians who won’t die in an endless war. IF IF IF it happens
Then Zelensky as well as Putin might reject such terms
Zelensky could be toppled and Putin can be bullied
B&Q owner Kingfisher has warned it expects a £45m hit from tax raids in the UK and France.
Shares in the company, which also runs Screwfix and Castorama DIY stores, fell 11.8pc after it said Rachel Reeves’s plan to increase employer National Insurance contributions would cost it £31m in its next financial year.
It said proposed tax moves in France, where the government is plotting changes to social taxes and delaying the abolishment of the CVAE sales tax, would deal a £14m blow to its profits.
B&Q owner Kingfisher has warned it expects a £45m hit from tax raids in the UK and France.
Shares in the company, which also runs Screwfix and Castorama DIY stores, fell 11.8pc after it said Rachel Reeves’s plan to increase employer National Insurance contributions would cost it £31m in its next financial year.
It said proposed tax moves in France, where the government is plotting changes to social taxes and delaying the abolishment of the CVAE sales tax, would deal a £14m blow to its profits.
“It now expects adjusted profit before tax of £510m to £540m, down from £510m to £550m.”
The owner and his wife are wonderful people trying to preserve a great historical landmark of Essex. Just about managing at the moment with tourists and weddings etc but thanks to this awful, philistine socialist government's changes to Business Property Relief that task has become a lot harder. The Telegraph article is spot on
Mine is a middling and slightly sceptical view; this sort of stuff is beset by extremes. Neither the Guardian nor the DTel perspective tends to tell the whole story. Everyone suffers changes in tax regimes, that's life. Eg People on minimum wage are paying large amounts of IT/NI, which is ludicrous.
With cases like Hedingham, the DTel overlooks the extent to which IHT is an avoidable tax, that the family choose to live in this position which has upside as well as downside.
Unless you see the accounts, know their lifestyle and know what legal and finacial advice they are acting on (and this never happens) it is best to be wary.
This, though, is set to be consequential (whether effective or otherwise).
Biggest overhaul of local government in over 50 years - Dozens of councils abolished to make more "efficient" large authorities with populations of 500k+ - First wave of restructuring includes Essex, Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.. https://x.com/MaxKendix/status/1860810593835286739
Still on theme with the 1970s redux, of course.
Could see the county council elections cancelled in those areas then unless the unitary boundaries agreed by next May
That's an intriguing thought, when the County's are mainly Conservatives, and they are expected (I think) to be on the way down.
Yes, well, before everyone starts to hyperventiliate, let's a) see the proposals and b) see whether these will be coercive or whether they will only happen if everyone agrees.
As an example, Surrey County Council is Conservative controlled but most of the eleven Boroughs and Districts are run by non-Conservative administrations and I can assure you relations between the County and the Districts make the stand off on the Korean Peninsula look positively friendly.
The County wants to take over the Districts and Boroughs and become like a Somerset or Cornwall while the Districts and Boroughs want two or three unitaries covering the area of Surrey so I don't see much hope of an agreement in the short term. Of course, were the Conservatives to lose control of the County next year, it might be different.
Presumably if areas aren't "willing" to "participate", the current arrangements will remain or will the Government force Unitary authorities on the unwilling areas?
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
Good news for Zelensky but I can't see Putin accepting terms dictated to him that don't see large amounts of Ukraine in Russian hands
It will likely be a division of Ukraine roughly where the front lines are now. Is my guess. So it’s not good news for Zelensky - but it is good news for tens of thousands of Ukrainians who won’t die in an endless war. IF IF IF it happens
Then Zelensky as well as Putin might reject such terms
Zelensky could be toppled and Putin can be bullied
Off topic, but I posted to you @Leon , yesterday I think, having noted a reply you made to me the previous day had been flagged. FYI I didn't flag it. I disagree with the flag button entirely and regardless it didn't deserve flagging anyway. Just wanted to make sure you knew it wasn't me.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
B&Q owner Kingfisher has warned it expects a £45m hit from tax raids in the UK and France.
Shares in the company, which also runs Screwfix and Castorama DIY stores, fell 11.8pc after it said Rachel Reeves’s plan to increase employer National Insurance contributions would cost it £31m in its next financial year.
It said proposed tax moves in France, where the government is plotting changes to social taxes and delaying the abolishment of the CVAE sales tax, would deal a £14m blow to its profits.
The head of the CBI on R4 Today was remarkably reticent on where the tax rises should have hit instead. This is a noteworthy trend.
This, though, is set to be consequential (whether effective or otherwise).
Biggest overhaul of local government in over 50 years - Dozens of councils abolished to make more "efficient" large authorities with populations of 500k+ - First wave of restructuring includes Essex, Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.. https://x.com/MaxKendix/status/1860810593835286739
Still on theme with the 1970s redux, of course.
I wonder if we’ll finally get a Greater Birmingham and a Greater Newcastle.
I'll be manning the barricades on the Tyne Bridge if there is any attempt by the Novocastrians to invade The Heed!
It wouldn’t work because Northumbria by itself isn’t big enough and would need to be somewhere.
You should not that the areas being talked about those that don’t have mayors.
A good header, thanks Gareth. But I do think that the economy was the main reason the Democrats lost, and I wouldn't place all the blame on the Fed, although their slowness to hike rates was a contributor to high inflation. The 2021 stimulus package was too big and contributed to high inflation. But Covid created a difficult economic situation and we've seen a wave of anti-incumbency as a result. The Democrats also allowed themselves to be seen as the party of the economic establishment, and there is a strong underlying sense of anger at economic elites and an economy that doesn't work for most people. The reality is that the Republicans are at least as much the party of big business and I think voters will figure that out in the next four years. Trump's proposed solution - deregulation, further fiscal profligacy, tariffs and mass deportations - won't deliver the results dome of his supporters are hoping for.
Yeah, add me to the list of people who think the number one cause of the defeat was the economy, and being better on all these other positions would not likely have moved the needle enough to pull out a victory. (Against a better GOP candidate, even less likely.)
One argument I thought interesting was the line Ezra Klein took recently that Democrats need to get better about delivering more quickly and effectively -- I think he said that people living in D controlled states swung more towards the Rs than those living in R controlled states. If voters don't think their local governments are working very effectively for them then why would they vote for the same party nationally? Biden may have passed the Inflation Reduction Act, but the whole process state and institutions move so slowly that voters scarcely got to see any benefits appearing from it. Delivery matters, not just passing legislation...
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
30,000 troops for a ceasefire line 155 miles long half way down the Korean peninsula.
The Ukraine-Russia land border is 1226 miles long. The Ukraine Belarus land border is a further 674 miles long, through which Russia invaded last time.
And that's before we may add Crimea to the ceasefire line. Or the 759 miles of the Ukraine-Transnistria border if we are being comprehensive.
My (and the rest of us?) concerns are that that is exactly what a clueless narcissist like Mr Trump might do.
But the big difference is that right behind Ukraine you’ve got all of NATO and its three nuclear powers. That’s a hefty deterrent in itself
Korea has no nukes and is the vulnerable southern end of a peninsula - with only the sea beyond
If Trump says to the European half of NATO “you’ve got the men and the money, it’s now your job to defend Ukraine” he’d be correct on all points...
And Europe could say, if you're not contributing, you don't get to make policy.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
Good news for Zelensky but I can't see Putin accepting terms dictated to him that don't see large amounts of Ukraine in Russian hands
It will likely be a division of Ukraine roughly where the front lines are now. Is my guess. So it’s not good news for Zelensky - but it is good news for tens of thousands of Ukrainians who won’t die in an endless war. IF IF IF it happens
Then Zelensky as well as Putin might reject such terms
Zelensky could be toppled and Putin can be bullied
Off topic, but I posted to you @Leon , yesterday I think, having noted a reply you made to me the previous day had been flagged. FYI I didn't flag it. I disagree with the flag button entirely and regardless it didn't deserve flagging anyway. Just wanted to make sure you knew it wasn't me.
Sure. No drama
I generally agree the flag button is ridiculous… but right now I want to flag that hideous remark by @another_richard
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
30,000 troops for a ceasefire line 155 miles long half way down the Korean peninsula.
The Ukraine-Russia land border is 1226 miles long. The Ukraine Belarus land border is a further 674 miles long, through which Russia invaded last time.
And that's before we may add Crimea to the ceasefire line. Or the 759 miles of the Ukraine-Transnistria border if we are being comprehensive.
My (and the rest of us?) concerns are that that is exactly what a clueless narcissist like Mr Trump might do.
But the big difference is that right behind Ukraine you’ve got all of NATO and its three nuclear powers. That’s a hefty deterrent in itself
Korea has no nukes and is the vulnerable southern end of a peninsula - with only the sea beyond
If Trump says to the European half of NATO “you’ve got the men and the money, it’s now your job to defend Ukraine” he’d be correct on all points...
And Europe could say, if you're not contributing, you don't get to make policy.
A good header, thanks Gareth. But I do think that the economy was the main reason the Democrats lost, and I wouldn't place all the blame on the Fed, although their slowness to hike rates was a contributor to high inflation. The 2021 stimulus package was too big and contributed to high inflation. But Covid created a difficult economic situation and we've seen a wave of anti-incumbency as a result. The Democrats also allowed themselves to be seen as the party of the economic establishment, and there is a strong underlying sense of anger at economic elites and an economy that doesn't work for most people. The reality is that the Republicans are at least as much the party of big business and I think voters will figure that out in the next four years. Trump's proposed solution - deregulation, further fiscal profligacy, tariffs and mass deportations - won't deliver the results dome of his supporters are hoping for.
Interesting discussion - obviously there was more than one factor so both OLB and Gareth may be right. A concern for British readers is that the UK media made little attempt to portray the campaign as anything but a clear Democrat win, and even after the event there hasn't been much discussion of what transpired differently, except a vague sense that American voters went nuts. I wonder if the UK reporters are based in big cities and didn't make the effort to go out and sample opinion in small towns.
The basic error for me, though, was the vagueness of the Harris campaign - essentially it came down to "don't vote for lunatic Trump, vote for my general approach". I struggle to think of any attractive promises that Harris made. It might have been enough, given how extreme and mendacious even many Republicans see Trump, but ultimastely people vote for an agenda - even if they're not sure it will work - rather than a general impression. That is arguably more important than conventional left/right measures.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
I think Musk is a #### but those criticising him over Ukraine need to consider how transformative Starlink was for fighting the Russians.
Transformative for both sides, as Russia is also extensively using it. And SpaceX are being handsomely paid for Ukrainian use by the US government. If Musk was doing it because it was the right thing to do, he wouldn't occasionally threaten to stop its use if he doesn't get paid.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
30,000 troops for a ceasefire line 155 miles long half way down the Korean peninsula.
The Ukraine-Russia land border is 1226 miles long. The Ukraine Belarus land border is a further 674 miles long, through which Russia invaded last time.
And that's before we may add Crimea to the ceasefire line. Or the 759 miles of the Ukraine-Transnistria border if we are being comprehensive.
My (and the rest of us?) concerns are that that is exactly what a clueless narcissist like Mr Trump might do.
But the big difference is that right behind Ukraine you’ve got all of NATO and its three nuclear powers. That’s a hefty deterrent in itself
Korea has no nukes and is the vulnerable southern end of a peninsula - with only the sea beyond...
S Korea has 30k US troops based there, and has had so for seven decades. And a far more sophisticated airforce, army and navy than either Ukraine or N Korea, along with a border a tenth of the size to defend.
The comparison just doesn't apply. If either Europe of NATO were fully committed to Ukraine's defence, that might be different. Quite clearly neither are - or they'd already have defeated the invasion.
You've yet to articulate any kind of plan which would bring about anything other than a temporary pause in the fighting.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
I think Musk is a #### but those criticising him over Ukraine need to consider how transformative Starlink was for fighting the Russians.
Transformative for both sides, as Russia is also extensively using it. And SpaceX are being handsomely paid for Ukrainian use by the US government. If Musk was doing it because it was the right thing to do, he wouldn't occasionally threaten to stop its use if he doesn't get paid.
That's a little unfair. Almost* every other company that had provided equipment to Ukraine have been paid for that equipment. Why shouldn't starlink be paid for?
* The only exception I can think of is the Turkish drone company who donated some drones after the public in the Baltic States donated money to buy some for Ukraine.
This, though, is set to be consequential (whether effective or otherwise).
Biggest overhaul of local government in over 50 years - Dozens of councils abolished to make more "efficient" large authorities with populations of 500k+ - First wave of restructuring includes Essex, Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.. https://x.com/MaxKendix/status/1860810593835286739
Still on theme with the 1970s redux, of course.
Could see the county council elections cancelled in those areas then unless the unitary boundaries agreed by next May
That's an intriguing thought, when the County's are mainly Conservatives, and they are expected (I think) to be on the way down.
Yes, well, before everyone starts to hyperventiliate, let's a) see the proposals and b) see whether these will be coercive or whether they will only happen if everyone agrees.
As an example, Surrey County Council is Conservative controlled but most of the eleven Boroughs and Districts are run by non-Conservative administrations and I can assure you relations between the County and the Districts make the stand off on the Korean Peninsula look positively friendly.
The County wants to take over the Districts and Boroughs and become like a Somerset or Cornwall while the Districts and Boroughs want two or three unitaries covering the area of Surrey so I don't see much hope of an agreement in the short term. Of course, were the Conservatives to lose control of the County next year, it might be different.
Presumably if areas aren't "willing" to "participate", the current arrangements will remain or will the Government force Unitary authorities on the unwilling areas?
I don't think it has been subject to local consent in the past, or given sufficient time.
eg The exercise in the late noughties for several counties, mismanaged by Hazel Blears.
Rarely has local government reorganisation been so botched as this hasty exercise, which has been inflicted on six other counties as well as Cornwall. In Northumberland, Durham, Shropshire and Wiltshire, single unitary authorities will be created on 1 April, while in Cheshire and Bedfordshire, counties are being split in two, with four new unitaries emerging.
Initially meant to streamline service delivery, and bring economies of scale to around 3 million people, the exercise has proved woefully partial and poorly thought out. Why, for instance, create unitary councils in only seven areas, while leaving the biggest counties - such as Kent and Essex, each with populations of 1.3 million - unscathed? Why not go for a big bang and create a system of unitary local government throughout England - currently a patchwork quilt of small district authorities and large metropolitan districts - as in Scotland and Wales?
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
30,000 troops for a ceasefire line 155 miles long half way down the Korean peninsula.
The Ukraine-Russia land border is 1226 miles long. The Ukraine Belarus land border is a further 674 miles long, through which Russia invaded last time.
And that's before we may add Crimea to the ceasefire line. Or the 759 miles of the Ukraine-Transnistria border if we are being comprehensive.
My (and the rest of us?) concerns are that that is exactly what a clueless narcissist like Mr Trump might do.
But the big difference is that right behind Ukraine you’ve got all of NATO and its three nuclear powers. That’s a hefty deterrent in itself
Korea has no nukes and is the vulnerable southern end of a peninsula - with only the sea beyond
If Trump says to the European half of NATO “you’ve got the men and the money, it’s now your job to defend Ukraine” he’d be correct on all points
Whatever happens European defence budgets are going up
Doesn’t S.Korea had have the backing of THE nuclear power? In fact MacArthur was all for dropping several hundred megatons on that benighted land. Who knows where the US-S.Korea Mutual Defense* Treaty will be after 4 years of unpredictable Donald though?
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
30,000 troops for a ceasefire line 155 miles long half way down the Korean peninsula.
The Ukraine-Russia land border is 1226 miles long. The Ukraine Belarus land border is a further 674 miles long, through which Russia invaded last time.
And that's before we may add Crimea to the ceasefire line. Or the 759 miles of the Ukraine-Transnistria border if we are being comprehensive.
My (and the rest of us?) concerns are that that is exactly what a clueless narcissist like Mr Trump might do.
But the big difference is that right behind Ukraine you’ve got all of NATO and its three nuclear powers. That’s a hefty deterrent in itself
Korea has no nukes and is the vulnerable southern end of a peninsula - with only the sea beyond...
S Korea has 30k US troops based there, and has had so for seven decades. And a far more sophisticated airforce, army and navy than either Ukraine or N Korea, along with a border a tenth of the size to defend.
The comparison just doesn't apply. If either Europe of NATO were fully committed to Ukraine's defence, that might be different. Quite clearly neither are - or they'd already have defeated the invasion.
You've yet to articulate any kind of plan which would bring about anything other than a temporary pause in the fighting.
This is really quite tiresome. Do tell us your fantastic scheme for winning or ending the Ukrainian war. I can’t recall hearing it, to date
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
That’s… quite repulsive. Sorry. But it is
True though. Viewed selfishly, the major western strategic success has been to kill as many Russians, and destroy as much Russian kit, as possible.
Might leave a bad taste in the mouth, but achieving that has made Europe safer. It’s why donating NATO kit to Ukraine always made sense. We bought it to kill Russians and destroy Russian kit. Might as well do that job for us in Ukraine.
A T80 destroyed there is one we don’t have to blow up in Warsaw.
For those briskly dissing the petition, I’d argue there is a point when it gets so many signatories it has a profound effect
2m is quite something, but it can be ignored with some awkward effort
5m would be a phenomenon in itself
10m+ and we’d be in uncharted territory
30m the government falls?
Clearly they are highly unlikely to reach even 5m, or even 3m, but it is not impossible
The speed it is currently going up I would be very surprised if it didn't exceed 3 million. The bar is, obviously, the revoke Article 50 petition.
Which didn't propel Jo Swinson to Number 10.
I agree. Which is why it needs to hit at least 5m to be a media sensation and 10m to have serious political effect. And these are numbers I am clearly plucking from my butt
The control on the petition is ticking a box saying your a British citizen. It's a bit like me signing the Welsh 20mph petition from my flat in Scotland, or the large proportion of people who respond to council consultations on cycle lanes who don't actually live in the council area, or don't provide an address.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
30,000 troops for a ceasefire line 155 miles long half way down the Korean peninsula.
The Ukraine-Russia land border is 1226 miles long. The Ukraine Belarus land border is a further 674 miles long, through which Russia invaded last time.
And that's before we may add Crimea to the ceasefire line. Or the 759 miles of the Ukraine-Transnistria border if we are being comprehensive.
My (and the rest of us?) concerns are that that is exactly what a clueless narcissist like Mr Trump might do.
But the big difference is that right behind Ukraine you’ve got all of NATO and its three nuclear powers. That’s a hefty deterrent in itself
Korea has no nukes and is the vulnerable southern end of a peninsula - with only the sea beyond
If Trump says to the European half of NATO “you’ve got the men and the money, it’s now your job to defend Ukraine” he’d be correct on all points
Whatever happens European defence budgets are going up
Doesn’t S.Korea had have the backing of THE nuclear power? In fact MacArthur was all for dropping several hundred megatons on that benighted land. Who knows where the US-S.Korea Mutual Defense* Treaty will be after 4 years of unpredictable Donald though?
*for Luckyguy that is the official spelling.
The same place it was after 4 years of unpredictable Donald last time round?
Did the treaty suffer significant degradation by 2020?
A good header, thanks Gareth. But I do think that the economy was the main reason the Democrats lost, and I wouldn't place all the blame on the Fed, although their slowness to hike rates was a contributor to high inflation. The 2021 stimulus package was too big and contributed to high inflation. But Covid created a difficult economic situation and we've seen a wave of anti-incumbency as a result. The Democrats also allowed themselves to be seen as the party of the economic establishment, and there is a strong underlying sense of anger at economic elites and an economy that doesn't work for most people. The reality is that the Republicans are at least as much the party of big business and I think voters will figure that out in the next four years. Trump's proposed solution - deregulation, further fiscal profligacy, tariffs and mass deportations - won't deliver the results dome of his supporters are hoping for.
Interesting discussion - obviously there was more than one factor so both OLB and Gareth may be right. A concern for British readers is that the UK media made little attempt to portray the campaign as anything but a clear Democrat win, and even after the event there hasn't been much discussion of what transpired differently, except a vague sense that American voters went nuts. I wonder if the UK reporters are based in big cities and didn't make the effort to go out and sample opinion in small towns.
The basic error for me, though, was the vagueness of the Harris campaign - essentially it came down to "don't vote for lunatic Trump, vote for my general approach". I struggle to think of any attractive promises that Harris made. It might have been enough, given how extreme and mendacious even many Republicans see Trump, but ultimastely people vote for an agenda - even if they're not sure it will work - rather than a general impression. That is arguably more important than conventional left/right measures.
I think there is a UK application too. While it was obvious that the Tories were going to lose the election, there was a very marked unenthusiasm for anyone to win it. And this was because of the lack of a clear set of principles and policies for which to vote Labour. Support for them was mostly on competence. (Whether that is remotely justified is of course an ongoing debate!).
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
That’s… quite repulsive. Sorry. But it is
True though. Viewed selfishly, the major western strategic success has been to kill as many Russians, and destroy as much Russian kit, as possible.
Might leave a bad taste in the mouth, but achieving that has made Europe safer. It’s why donating NATO kit to Ukraine always made sense. We bought it to kill Russians and destroy Russian kit. Might as well do that job for us in Ukraine.
A T80 destroyed there is one we don’t have to blow up in Warsaw.
The “vast destruction of human lives” is never a “huge success” - whether they are Russian, British, Palestinian, Jewish, Gambian, Azerbaijani or Bhutanese
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
30,000 troops for a ceasefire line 155 miles long half way down the Korean peninsula.
The Ukraine-Russia land border is 1226 miles long. The Ukraine Belarus land border is a further 674 miles long, through which Russia invaded last time.
And that's before we may add Crimea to the ceasefire line. Or the 759 miles of the Ukraine-Transnistria border if we are being comprehensive.
My (and the rest of us?) concerns are that that is exactly what a clueless narcissist like Mr Trump might do.
But the big difference is that right behind Ukraine you’ve got all of NATO and its three nuclear powers. That’s a hefty deterrent in itself
Korea has no nukes and is the vulnerable southern end of a peninsula - with only the sea beyond...
S Korea has 30k US troops based there, and has had so for seven decades. And a far more sophisticated airforce, army and navy than either Ukraine or N Korea, along with a border a tenth of the size to defend.
The comparison just doesn't apply. If either Europe of NATO were fully committed to Ukraine's defence, that might be different. Quite clearly neither are - or they'd already have defeated the invasion.
You've yet to articulate any kind of plan which would bring about anything other than a temporary pause in the fighting.
This is really quite tiresome. Do tell us your fantastic scheme for winning or ending the Ukrainian war. I can’t recall hearing it, to date
That's the point. Any scheme for quickly ending the war without serious commitments on the part of the west is "fantastic". The idea that Trump could impose a deal and simultaneously walk away from any such commitments, just because he's "unpredictable", is nonsense.
I mentioned the other day that I had seen a presentation around delivery rider problems in cities, and someone being tasked with 100-200 delivers per shift.
The video is not yet up.
But I just had a parcel delivered by the Royal Mail, and my delivery man says he has more than 100 to do today.
It's very Golgafrincham B-Ark - 300 pre-injection alco swabs, which have come in a cardboard envelope totally loose with mini flatpack boxes still in their flat state amongst the product. Constructed packing boxes would not go through a post box, and would be a "small parcel", not a "large letter" as they would be more than 25mm thick.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
That’s… quite repulsive. Sorry. But it is
You need to deal with what war entails - the destruction of the enemy's means of waging war.
Either the enemy's will, their equipment or their manpower.
The three are usually linked.
What do you think this country's strategy was in the world wars ?
Kill Germans, kill Germans, kill Germans.
In the second war we were able to outsource most of the killing of German soldiers to the Soviets while we undertook the deliberate and indiscriminate destruction of German cities and killing of German civilians.
In both wars we deliberately starved Germany through blockade.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
30,000 troops for a ceasefire line 155 miles long half way down the Korean peninsula.
The Ukraine-Russia land border is 1226 miles long. The Ukraine Belarus land border is a further 674 miles long, through which Russia invaded last time.
And that's before we may add Crimea to the ceasefire line. Or the 759 miles of the Ukraine-Transnistria border if we are being comprehensive.
My (and the rest of us?) concerns are that that is exactly what a clueless narcissist like Mr Trump might do.
But the big difference is that right behind Ukraine you’ve got all of NATO and its three nuclear powers. That’s a hefty deterrent in itself
Korea has no nukes and is the vulnerable southern end of a peninsula - with only the sea beyond...
S Korea has 30k US troops based there, and has had so for seven decades. And a far more sophisticated airforce, army and navy than either Ukraine or N Korea, along with a border a tenth of the size to defend.
The comparison just doesn't apply. If either Europe of NATO were fully committed to Ukraine's defence, that might be different. Quite clearly neither are - or they'd already have defeated the invasion.
You've yet to articulate any kind of plan which would bring about anything other than a temporary pause in the fighting.
This is really quite tiresome. Do tell us your fantastic scheme for winning or ending the Ukrainian war. I can’t recall hearing it, to date
One doesn't have to have a better idea, to be able to identify the original idea doesn't work. That is a failing of the old saying and is a useful contribution in any business or project. Known as an evaluator. @Nigelb points out some obvious flaws in your suggestion. You need to overcome his points not ask him to come up with an alternative.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
30,000 troops for a ceasefire line 155 miles long half way down the Korean peninsula.
The Ukraine-Russia land border is 1226 miles long. The Ukraine Belarus land border is a further 674 miles long, through which Russia invaded last time.
And that's before we may add Crimea to the ceasefire line. Or the 759 miles of the Ukraine-Transnistria border if we are being comprehensive.
My (and the rest of us?) concerns are that that is exactly what a clueless narcissist like Mr Trump might do.
But the big difference is that right behind Ukraine you’ve got all of NATO and its three nuclear powers. That’s a hefty deterrent in itself
Korea has no nukes and is the vulnerable southern end of a peninsula - with only the sea beyond...
S Korea has 30k US troops based there, and has had so for seven decades. And a far more sophisticated airforce, army and navy than either Ukraine or N Korea, along with a border a tenth of the size to defend.
The comparison just doesn't apply. If either Europe of NATO were fully committed to Ukraine's defence, that might be different. Quite clearly neither are - or they'd already have defeated the invasion.
You've yet to articulate any kind of plan which would bring about anything other than a temporary pause in the fighting.
This is really quite tiresome. Do tell us your fantastic scheme for winning or ending the Ukrainian war. I can’t recall hearing it, to date
That's the point. Any scheme for quickly ending the war without serious commitments on the part of the west is "fantastic". The idea that Trump could impose a deal and simultaneously walk away from any such commitments, just because he's "unpredictable", is nonsense.
So you have no plan, no clue, it’s just a sequence of lamentations
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
30,000 troops for a ceasefire line 155 miles long half way down the Korean peninsula.
The Ukraine-Russia land border is 1226 miles long. The Ukraine Belarus land border is a further 674 miles long, through which Russia invaded last time.
And that's before we may add Crimea to the ceasefire line. Or the 759 miles of the Ukraine-Transnistria border if we are being comprehensive.
My (and the rest of us?) concerns are that that is exactly what a clueless narcissist like Mr Trump might do.
But the big difference is that right behind Ukraine you’ve got all of NATO and its three nuclear powers. That’s a hefty deterrent in itself
Korea has no nukes and is the vulnerable southern end of a peninsula - with only the sea beyond...
S Korea has 30k US troops based there, and has had so for seven decades. And a far more sophisticated airforce, army and navy than either Ukraine or N Korea, along with a border a tenth of the size to defend.
The comparison just doesn't apply. If either Europe of NATO were fully committed to Ukraine's defence, that might be different. Quite clearly neither are - or they'd already have defeated the invasion.
You've yet to articulate any kind of plan which would bring about anything other than a temporary pause in the fighting.
This is really quite tiresome. Do tell us your fantastic scheme for winning or ending the Ukrainian war. I can’t recall hearing it, to date
I think the reason for that is that there *is* no good scheme, let alone a fantastic one. We are never going to get the pre-war situation back, and there is no appetite in the West for supplying Ukraine enough to keep Russia from advancing, or for being obviously heavy-handed enough in enforcing any border to stop them having another go in a few years. About the only out we have is that maybe a temporary pause holds long enough that Putin dies of natural causes and his successor has bigger fish to fry and is less personally invested in taking Ukraine.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
Yeah. It’s too early to say if this means anything
Still, in the awful context of Ukraine, even a faint shred of optimism is welcome
As I noted upthread, it's too early to tell how Trump will govern. The other straw in the wind is that his choice for defence secretary is a Christian nationalist, who opposes any overseas commitments (including deep scepticism about NATO), and any aid to Ukraine.
BUT you could argue that the best way of ceasing aid to Ukraine is ending the war, thus ending the requirement for aid to Ukraine
With my Jaunty Beret of Optimism on, I’d say it might go something like this: Trump threatens Putin as suggested. End the war now or we give Zelensky 3000 stealth fighters. Freeze the front lines where they are. Korean armistice
Putin reluctantly agrees; Zelensky wearily agrees
Trump turns to us, the Europeans, and says “right I’ve ended the war now you’ve got to defend democratic Ukraine the way the USA defends South Korea”
(The USA keeps 30,000 troops and much weaponry in Korea)
That ends the war and it’s a good deal for Trump and he looks like a winner
30,000 troops for a ceasefire line 155 miles long half way down the Korean peninsula.
The Ukraine-Russia land border is 1226 miles long. The Ukraine Belarus land border is a further 674 miles long, through which Russia invaded last time.
And that's before we may add Crimea to the ceasefire line. Or the 759 miles of the Ukraine-Transnistria border if we are being comprehensive.
My (and the rest of us?) concerns are that that is exactly what a clueless narcissist like Mr Trump might do.
But the big difference is that right behind Ukraine you’ve got all of NATO and its three nuclear powers. That’s a hefty deterrent in itself
Korea has no nukes and is the vulnerable southern end of a peninsula - with only the sea beyond...
S Korea has 30k US troops based there, and has had so for seven decades. And a far more sophisticated airforce, army and navy than either Ukraine or N Korea, along with a border a tenth of the size to defend.
The comparison just doesn't apply. If either Europe of NATO were fully committed to Ukraine's defence, that might be different. Quite clearly neither are - or they'd already have defeated the invasion.
You've yet to articulate any kind of plan which would bring about anything other than a temporary pause in the fighting.
This is really quite tiresome. Do tell us your fantastic scheme for winning or ending the Ukrainian war. I can’t recall hearing it, to date
One doesn't have to have a better idea, to be able to identify the original idea doesn't work. That is a failing of the old saying and is a useful contribution in any business or project. Known as an evaluator. @Nigelb points out some obvious flaws in your suggestion. You need to overcome his points not ask him to come up with an alternative.
I’ve spelled it out clearly multiple times. I’m not doing it again unless I get paid
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
That’s… quite repulsive. Sorry. But it is
True though. Viewed selfishly, the major western strategic success has been to kill as many Russians, and destroy as much Russian kit, as possible.
Might leave a bad taste in the mouth, but achieving that has made Europe safer. It’s why donating NATO kit to Ukraine always made sense. We bought it to kill Russians and destroy Russian kit. Might as well do that job for us in Ukraine.
A T80 destroyed there is one we don’t have to blow up in Warsaw.
The “vast destruction of human lives” is never a “huge success” - whether they are Russian, British, Palestinian, Jewish, Gambian, Azerbaijani or Bhutanese
The statement is repulsive
It’s realpolitik. Russia started this war, not us, but it having done so, a major western success has been to blunt its war machine and deter others who bought into its kit (looking at China).
Blunting its war machine means killing its soldiers and destroying its kit.
That’s what you do in a war. You kill the other side.
Edit - that’s why you should try to avoid them. But once you’re in one, your business is killing the enemy.
For those briskly dissing the petition, I’d argue there is a point when it gets so many signatories it has a profound effect
2m is quite something, but it can be ignored with some awkward effort
5m would be a phenomenon in itself
10m+ and we’d be in uncharted territory
30m the government falls?
Clearly they are highly unlikely to reach even 5m, or even 3m, but it is not impossible
The speed it is currently going up I would be very surprised if it didn't exceed 3 million. The bar is, obviously, the revoke Article 50 petition.
Which didn't propel Jo Swinson to Number 10.
I agree. Which is why it needs to hit at least 5m to be a media sensation and 10m to have serious political effect. And these are numbers I am clearly plucking from my butt
The control on the petition is ticking a box saying your a British citizen. It's a bit like me signing the Welsh 20mph petition from my flat in Scotland, or the large proportion of people who respond to council consultations on cycle lanes who don't actually live in the council area, or don't provide an address.
Also - the highest proportions by constituency are those that are currently represented by Conservative or Reform MPs. Bunch of sore losers, 14 years of the Tories, your turn to suck up representative democracy.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
That’s… quite repulsive. Sorry. But it is
You need to deal with what war entails - the destruction of the enemy's means of waging war.
Either the enemy's will, their equipment or their manpower.
The three are usually linked.
What do you think this country's strategy was in the world wars ?
Kill Germans, kill Germans, kill Germans.
In the second war we were able to outsource most of the killing of German soldiers to the Soviets while we undertook the deliberate and indiscriminate destruction of German cities and killing of German civilians.
In both wars we deliberately starved Germany through blockade.
The civilian bombing campaigns by both Germany and the allies in World War 2 were of dubious usefulness in the War and were a monstrous destruction of life and property from which some cities have never fully recovered.
Anyone so far down the rabbit hole in this conflict that they are celebrating deaths needs to give their head a wobble and go out for some fresh air.
It is plainly right that a resounding Ukrainian victory would deter China, but the obvious rejoinder is why Taiwan hasn't done much more to help Ukraine itself. According to Wikipedia and the link below anyway its record is pretty pitiful - medical supplies, limited financial support and allowing the Ukrainians to buy drones.
Total value over almost 3 years $125 million, compared with say us at more than £3 billion/year.
Of course the Taiwanese need to keep most of their weapons but they could certainly be doing much more, e.g. buying weapons in third countries and sending them to Ukraine.
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel tells the BBC’s Katya Adler the gas deals she made with Russia were intended to help German firms and kept the peace with Moscow, as she insisted the war with Ukraine would have started earlier if she hadn’t blocked Kyiv’s entry into Nato in 2008.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
I think the outline of Trump's approach is becoming clearer - offer Putin the eastern provinces and threaten massive retaliation if he refuses or later reneges on the cease-fire. Invite Western Europe to reinforce the rest of Ukraine (90%?). Details - is Ukraine able to join NATO? does Russia get the punitive sanctions reversed? - remain completely unclear, and might take years to unravel.
This, though, is set to be consequential (whether effective or otherwise).
Biggest overhaul of local government in over 50 years - Dozens of councils abolished to make more "efficient" large authorities with populations of 500k+ - First wave of restructuring includes Essex, Kent, Surrey, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.. https://x.com/MaxKendix/status/1860810593835286739
Still on theme with the 1970s redux, of course.
Could see the county council elections cancelled in those areas then unless the unitary boundaries agreed by next May
That's an intriguing thought, when the County's are mainly Conservatives, and they are expected (I think) to be on the way down.
Yes, well, before everyone starts to hyperventiliate, let's a) see the proposals and b) see whether these will be coercive or whether they will only happen if everyone agrees.
As an example, Surrey County Council is Conservative controlled but most of the eleven Boroughs and Districts are run by non-Conservative administrations and I can assure you relations between the County and the Districts make the stand off on the Korean Peninsula look positively friendly.
The County wants to take over the Districts and Boroughs and become like a Somerset or Cornwall while the Districts and Boroughs want two or three unitaries covering the area of Surrey so I don't see much hope of an agreement in the short term. Of course, were the Conservatives to lose control of the County next year, it might be different.
Presumably if areas aren't "willing" to "participate", the current arrangements will remain or will the Government force Unitary authorities on the unwilling areas?
I don't think it has been subject to local consent in the past, or given sufficient time.
eg The exercise in the late noughties for several counties, mismanaged by Hazel Blears.
Rarely has local government reorganisation been so botched as this hasty exercise, which has been inflicted on six other counties as well as Cornwall. In Northumberland, Durham, Shropshire and Wiltshire, single unitary authorities will be created on 1 April, while in Cheshire and Bedfordshire, counties are being split in two, with four new unitaries emerging.
Initially meant to streamline service delivery, and bring economies of scale to around 3 million people, the exercise has proved woefully partial and poorly thought out. Why, for instance, create unitary councils in only seven areas, while leaving the biggest counties - such as Kent and Essex, each with populations of 1.3 million - unscathed? Why not go for a big bang and create a system of unitary local government throughout England - currently a patchwork quilt of small district authorities and large metropolitan districts - as in Scotland and Wales?
Local government and counties have been so mucked about since the 1970s that no organic, developmental and traditional approach to local loyalty and government is now possible.
Historically the basic local unit that makes most sense are the county (as mostly pre 1970) since they basically are a continuation of pre 1066 configurations. Few abiding loyalties have been created since then (though London and some cities are special cases).
The most sensible thing to do (as has been done but not brilliantly with Cumbria recently) is to look at the old county structure and see how to use it with as few alterations as possible to the pre 1970 set up to fulfil today's needs.
I doubt if even this will restore the long forgotten county of my birth, Middlesex but it would be a start.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
That’s… quite repulsive. Sorry. But it is
True though. Viewed selfishly, the major western strategic success has been to kill as many Russians, and destroy as much Russian kit, as possible.
Might leave a bad taste in the mouth, but achieving that has made Europe safer. It’s why donating NATO kit to Ukraine always made sense. We bought it to kill Russians and destroy Russian kit. Might as well do that job for us in Ukraine.
A T80 destroyed there is one we don’t have to blow up in Warsaw.
The “vast destruction of human lives” is never a “huge success” - whether they are Russian, British, Palestinian, Jewish, Gambian, Azerbaijani or Bhutanese
The statement is repulsive
It’s realpolitik. Russia started this war, not us, but it having done so, a major western success has been to blunt its war machine and deter others who bought into its kit (looking at China).
Blunting its war machine means killing its soldiers and destroying its kit.
That’s what you do in a war. You kill the other side.
Yes. But the “vast destruction of human lives” is NEVER a “huge success”. Usually it is an enormous evil - or a monumental tragedy. During a just war it is a grave and necessary evil
Those dead Russians are not Vladimir Putin, they are generally poor badly armed conscripts from the Russian fringes and boondocks. Frightened, lonely, cold. Sons, brothers, fathers
It is, arguably, a necessary evil that they die en masse. It is not “a huge success”
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel tells the BBC’s Katya Adler the gas deals she made with Russia were intended to help German firms and kept the peace with Moscow, as she insisted the war with Ukraine would have started earlier if she hadn’t blocked Kyiv’s entry into Nato in 2008.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
I think the outline of Trump's approach is becoming clearer - offer Putin the eastern provinces and threaten massive retaliation if he refuses or later reneges on the cease-fire. Invite Western Europe to reinforce the rest of Ukraine (90%?). Details - is Ukraine able to join NATO? does Russia get the punitive sanctions reversed? - remain completely unclear, and might take years to unravel.
The problem is that if there’s European troops on the border and security guarantees, then Ukraine doesn’t need NATO because it’s de facto within the tent anyway. And with Finland having now joined NATO as well, from Putin’s perspective he can’t sell that picture of a strategic end state as a win.
The negotiated settlement is going to be a tricky one if we are to avoid Russian humiliation. And obviously we have to.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
That’s… quite repulsive. Sorry. But it is
True though. Viewed selfishly, the major western strategic success has been to kill as many Russians, and destroy as much Russian kit, as possible.
Might leave a bad taste in the mouth, but achieving that has made Europe safer. It’s why donating NATO kit to Ukraine always made sense. We bought it to kill Russians and destroy Russian kit. Might as well do that job for us in Ukraine.
A T80 destroyed there is one we don’t have to blow up in Warsaw.
The “vast destruction of human lives” is never a “huge success” - whether they are Russian, British, Palestinian, Jewish, Gambian, Azerbaijani or Bhutanese
The statement is repulsive
Its people with your mentality which the likes of Putin and Hitler have always preyed upon.
I'm sure you regard yourself as humane, they think that you're weak.
I see this work the hammer will once again be taken to working age benefits whilst nothing is done about the ludicrously non-affordable triple lock for boomers.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
I think Musk is a #### but those criticising him over Ukraine need to consider how transformative Starlink was for fighting the Russians.
Transformative for both sides, as Russia is also extensively using it. And SpaceX are being handsomely paid for Ukrainian use by the US government. If Musk was doing it because it was the right thing to do, he wouldn't occasionally threaten to stop its use if he doesn't get paid.
That's a little unfair. Almost* every other company that had provided equipment to Ukraine have been paid for that equipment. Why shouldn't starlink be paid for?
* The only exception I can think of is the Turkish drone company who donated some drones after the public in the Baltic States donated money to buy some for Ukraine.
Yes, but it shows that Musk is just yet another businessman when it comes to Ukraine and Starlink, and therefore he deserves very little credit for its use by the Ukrainians. And the fact he threatens to cut them off shows that he does not have Ukraine's best interests at heart.
For that reason, he deserves no other credit than any other businessmen providing material to the Ukrainians.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
That’s… quite repulsive. Sorry. But it is
True though. Viewed selfishly, the major western strategic success has been to kill as many Russians, and destroy as much Russian kit, as possible.
Might leave a bad taste in the mouth, but achieving that has made Europe safer. It’s why donating NATO kit to Ukraine always made sense. We bought it to kill Russians and destroy Russian kit. Might as well do that job for us in Ukraine.
A T80 destroyed there is one we don’t have to blow up in Warsaw.
The “vast destruction of human lives” is never a “huge success” - whether they are Russian, British, Palestinian, Jewish, Gambian, Azerbaijani or Bhutanese
The statement is repulsive
Its people with your mentality which the likes of Putin and Hitler have always preyed upon.
I'm sure you regard yourself as humane, they think that you're weak.
Er, ok
I’m on record as thinking that the British bombing of Germany was entirely justified. They sowed the wind etc
I just don’t regard all those dead Germans as a “huge success”. A grim and hideous necessity, more like
I object to your language, and language is important. You are dehumanising Russians
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel tells the BBC’s Katya Adler the gas deals she made with Russia were intended to help German firms and kept the peace with Moscow, as she insisted the war with Ukraine would have started earlier if she hadn’t blocked Kyiv’s entry into Nato in 2008.
While Starmer is creating new laws to make things that are illegal that are already illegal, again the authorities just let all this stuff slide....although the broken window theory cleanup of NYC is not the magic bullet and the stats show crime decreasing in other American cities at that time, as somebody who regular visited, it was undeniable that it was just a much better place to be.
We also have the seeming shrug of mobile phone snatching by people on illegal ebikes, as its just what happens in London.
The Process State is about adding process, being surprised that Reality doesn’t conform to the process and adding more process to fix the problem.
On the drink spiking. A number of years ago, in Northern Peru, there was a spike in crime. Due to increasing wealth, people were starting to use shiny new shopping centres. Car jacking on the roads out of the shopping centres became a thing.
The Peruvian government did what it always does - flips from liberalism to er….
They sent a top police general to take over.
- He started by pedestrianising some bits of the regional capital. Anyone trying to ride a moped/motorbikes through the areas would have a chain lifted by a policemen to impede their progress. This killed some bag snatchers - He cracked down on police corruption and sent a number of policemen to prison. Which is pretty much a death sentence for a cop in Peru. - He filled taxis with policemen in plain clothes. When they got car jacked, they started shooting.
Of course, being Peru, a couple of years of low crime later, they tried to prosecute the police general for being naughty. He retired to Florida.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
FFS, the last thing the world needs is Musk investing in weaponry any larger than flamethrowers...
There are a large and growing number of startups, in the US, which are using the template of no pyramids and fight the requirements getting into military contracting.
Solid rocket motors for 10% of the usual prices etc….
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
That’s… quite repulsive. Sorry. But it is
True though. Viewed selfishly, the major western strategic success has been to kill as many Russians, and destroy as much Russian kit, as possible.
Might leave a bad taste in the mouth, but achieving that has made Europe safer. It’s why donating NATO kit to Ukraine always made sense. We bought it to kill Russians and destroy Russian kit. Might as well do that job for us in Ukraine.
A T80 destroyed there is one we don’t have to blow up in Warsaw.
The “vast destruction of human lives” is never a “huge success” - whether they are Russian, British, Palestinian, Jewish, Gambian, Azerbaijani or Bhutanese
The statement is repulsive
It’s realpolitik. Russia started this war, not us, but it having done so, a major western success has been to blunt its war machine and deter others who bought into its kit (looking at China).
Blunting its war machine means killing its soldiers and destroying its kit.
That’s what you do in a war. You kill the other side.
Yes. But the “vast destruction of human lives” is NEVER a “huge success”. Usually it is an enormous evil - or a monumental tragedy. During a just war it is a grave and necessary evil
Those dead Russians are not Vladimir Putin, they are generally poor badly armed conscripts from the Russian fringes and boondocks. Frightened, lonely, cold. Sons, brothers, fathers
I'd like to agree with that, but it's those sons, brothers and fathers that haven't to my knowledge shown the slightest scruple about taking part in the rape of Bucha, the execution of countless Ukrainian POWs and ten thousand less well known war crimes in the last two and a half years. Sure I'd rather we tried them in a court of law and exposed their crimes sending them to a humane jail, but in an imperfect world a HIMARS or two hundred will do the job almost as well.
The only good Russian solder is either a deserter or a corpse.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
That’s… quite repulsive. Sorry. But it is
True though. Viewed selfishly, the major western strategic success has been to kill as many Russians, and destroy as much Russian kit, as possible.
Might leave a bad taste in the mouth, but achieving that has made Europe safer. It’s why donating NATO kit to Ukraine always made sense. We bought it to kill Russians and destroy Russian kit. Might as well do that job for us in Ukraine.
A T80 destroyed there is one we don’t have to blow up in Warsaw.
The “vast destruction of human lives” is never a “huge success” - whether they are Russian, British, Palestinian, Jewish, Gambian, Azerbaijani or Bhutanese
The statement is repulsive
It’s realpolitik. Russia started this war, not us, but it having done so, a major western success has been to blunt its war machine and deter others who bought into its kit (looking at China).
Blunting its war machine means killing its soldiers and destroying its kit.
That’s what you do in a war. You kill the other side.
Yes. But the “vast destruction of human lives” is NEVER a “huge success”. Usually it is an enormous evil - or a monumental tragedy. During a just war it is a grave and necessary evil
Those dead Russians are not Vladimir Putin, they are generally poor badly armed conscripts from the Russian fringes and boondocks. Frightened, lonely, cold. Sons, brothers, fathers
It is, arguably, a necessary evil that they die en masse. It is not “a huge success”
Here ends your Thought for the Day
Sorry but that’s just crap. Winning WW2 was a huge strategic success, and to do it we had to kill thousands. Winning in the Falklands was a huge strategic success, and to do it we had to kill many hundreds.
You’re obviously arguing for the sake of it because you’re bored and I won’t bite any further. I only paid for the five minute argument.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
I think the outline of Trump's approach is becoming clearer - offer Putin the eastern provinces and threaten massive retaliation if he refuses or later reneges on the cease-fire. Invite Western Europe to reinforce the rest of Ukraine (90%?). Details - is Ukraine able to join NATO? does Russia get the punitive sanctions reversed? - remain completely unclear, and might take years to unravel.
Again, you say: "offer Putin the eastern provinces". That can mean many things; but if you meant 'the territory Russia currently holds', then that's what you should say. The 'eastern provinces' is a much larger area, and you would be giving well over a million Ukrainians to an aggressor imperialist and fascist state.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
That’s… quite repulsive. Sorry. But it is
True though. Viewed selfishly, the major western strategic success has been to kill as many Russians, and destroy as much Russian kit, as possible.
Might leave a bad taste in the mouth, but achieving that has made Europe safer. It’s why donating NATO kit to Ukraine always made sense. We bought it to kill Russians and destroy Russian kit. Might as well do that job for us in Ukraine.
A T80 destroyed there is one we don’t have to blow up in Warsaw.
The “vast destruction of human lives” is never a “huge success” - whether they are Russian, British, Palestinian, Jewish, Gambian, Azerbaijani or Bhutanese
The statement is repulsive
It’s realpolitik. Russia started this war, not us, but it having done so, a major western success has been to blunt its war machine and deter others who bought into its kit (looking at China).
Blunting its war machine means killing its soldiers and destroying its kit.
That’s what you do in a war. You kill the other side.
Yes. But the “vast destruction of human lives” is NEVER a “huge success”. Usually it is an enormous evil - or a monumental tragedy. During a just war it is a grave and necessary evil
Those dead Russians are not Vladimir Putin, they are generally poor badly armed conscripts from the Russian fringes and boondocks. Frightened, lonely, cold. Sons, brothers, fathers
It is, arguably, a necessary evil that they die en masse. It is not “a huge success”
Here ends your Thought for the Day
Sorry but that’s just crap. Winning WW2 was a huge strategic success, and to do it we had to kill thousands. Winning in the Falklands was a huge strategic success, and to do it we had to kill many hundreds.
You’re obviously arguing for the sake of it because you’re bored and I won’t bite any further. I only paid for the five minute argument.
Actually no I really mean this. Maybe it’s because I’ve travelled widely in Russia and met so many wonderful Russians. Or maybe it’s because I haven’t entirely mislaid my moral compass
But anyway I agree the argument is going nowhere. I’ve made my point
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
That’s… quite repulsive. Sorry. But it is
You need to deal with what war entails - the destruction of the enemy's means of waging war.
Either the enemy's will, their equipment or their manpower.
The three are usually linked.
What do you think this country's strategy was in the world wars ?
Kill Germans, kill Germans, kill Germans.
In the second war we were able to outsource most of the killing of German soldiers to the Soviets while we undertook the deliberate and indiscriminate destruction of German cities and killing of German civilians.
In both wars we deliberately starved Germany through blockade.
The civilian bombing campaigns by both Germany and the allies in World War 2 were of dubious usefulness in the War and were a monstrous destruction of life and property from which some cities have never fully recovered.
Anyone so far down the rabbit hole in this conflict that they are celebrating deaths needs to give their head a wobble and go out for some fresh air.
I very much disagree with this. Harris's campaign and that of the USAAF shortened the war considerably. By attacking the Reich day and night they forced the Nazis to defend the Reich. Every single 88mm firing flak is an 88mm not on the front line firing at Russian, Britsh, US or other soldiers. The sheer dislocation of the German economy by the end limited what Germany could do. The ran out of everything, couldn't move what they had.
And the cost? The RAF lost 58,438 men. In terms of results the campaign saved many. many more allied lives. But soldiers who didn't get killed by an 88mm in Normandy don't show up in the stats, do they?
I think people think the bombing war failed, because on one level, the air way strategists were trying to show that air power alone could win the war. (Arguably in late 45 in Japan it did.) By that mark it was a failure, but thats a high mark.
B&Q owner Kingfisher has warned it expects a £45m hit from tax raids in the UK and France.
Shares in the company, which also runs Screwfix and Castorama DIY stores, fell 11.8pc after it said Rachel Reeves’s plan to increase employer National Insurance contributions would cost it £31m in its next financial year.
It said proposed tax moves in France, where the government is plotting changes to social taxes and delaying the abolishment of the CVAE sales tax, would deal a £14m blow to its profits.
“It now expects adjusted profit before tax of £510m to £540m, down from £510m to £550m.”
Only £500m profit? My heart bleeds
So, the £45m hit will reduce profits by £0 (bottom end estimate) to £10m (top end estimate)? Or is that ~£500m only the France figure? Even there, the £14m 'hit' doesn't shift the bottom end of profit expectations and hits the top end by £10m. I'm only a lowly scientist and not good with fancy accountancy maths, but I can't quite see how that adds up.
B&Q owner Kingfisher has warned it expects a £45m hit from tax raids in the UK and France.
Shares in the company, which also runs Screwfix and Castorama DIY stores, fell 11.8pc after it said Rachel Reeves’s plan to increase employer National Insurance contributions would cost it £31m in its next financial year.
It said proposed tax moves in France, where the government is plotting changes to social taxes and delaying the abolishment of the CVAE sales tax, would deal a £14m blow to its profits.
“It now expects adjusted profit before tax of £510m to £540m, down from £510m to £550m.”
Only £500m profit? My heart bleeds
So, the £45m hit will reduce profits by £0 (bottom end estimate) to £10m (top end estimate)? Or is that ~£500m only the France figure? Even there, the £14m 'hit' doesn't shift the bottom end of profit expectations and hits the top end by £10m. I'm only a lowly scientist and not good with fancy accountancy maths, but I can't quite see how that adds up.
The Kingfisher group is global. As well as UK and France, they have big chains in other EU countries, Turkey and the Middle East.
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel tells the BBC’s Katya Adler the gas deals she made with Russia were intended to help German firms and kept the peace with Moscow, as she insisted the war with Ukraine would have started earlier if she hadn’t blocked Kyiv’s entry into Nato in 2008.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
I think Musk is a #### but those criticising him over Ukraine need to consider how transformative Starlink was for fighting the Russians.
Transformative for both sides, as Russia is also extensively using it. And SpaceX are being handsomely paid for Ukrainian use by the US government. If Musk was doing it because it was the right thing to do, he wouldn't occasionally threaten to stop its use if he doesn't get paid.
That's a little unfair. Almost* every other company that had provided equipment to Ukraine have been paid for that equipment. Why shouldn't starlink be paid for?
* The only exception I can think of is the Turkish drone company who donated some drones after the public in the Baltic States donated money to buy some for Ukraine.
Yes, but it shows that Musk is just yet another businessman when it comes to Ukraine and Starlink, and therefore he deserves very little credit for its use by the Ukrainians. And the fact he threatens to cut them off shows that he does not have Ukraine's best interests at heart.
For that reason, he deserves no other credit than any other businessmen providing material to the Ukrainians.
I refer you to The Big Bang Theory, series 3, episode 3, "The Gothowitz Deviation".
Be nice to people when they do things you want them to do.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
That’s… quite repulsive. Sorry. But it is
True though. Viewed selfishly, the major western strategic success has been to kill as many Russians, and destroy as much Russian kit, as possible.
Might leave a bad taste in the mouth, but achieving that has made Europe safer. It’s why donating NATO kit to Ukraine always made sense. We bought it to kill Russians and destroy Russian kit. Might as well do that job for us in Ukraine.
A T80 destroyed there is one we don’t have to blow up in Warsaw.
The “vast destruction of human lives” is never a “huge success” - whether they are Russian, British, Palestinian, Jewish, Gambian, Azerbaijani or Bhutanese
The statement is repulsive
Its people with your mentality which the likes of Putin and Hitler have always preyed upon.
I'm sure you regard yourself as humane, they think that you're weak.
Er, ok
I’m on record as thinking that the British bombing of Germany was entirely justified. They sowed the wind etc
I just don’t regard all those dead Germans as a “huge success”. A grim and hideous necessity, more like
I object to your language, and language is important. You are dehumanising Russians
So you don't object to the Russian deaths but to how its described.
A very safe, liberal, hypocritical gloss on reality.
Call it what you want - self defence, reaping the whirlwind, justifiable retaliation, necessary evil.
But the western world is in a better position because all those Russians are dead and all that Russian equipment is destroyed.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
Trump has no leverage on Putin unless he threatens him with something big. To get a deal you need leverage so I expect he will do that. Putin will be expecting it too. He'll play Trump like a fiddle imo but let's see.
Will the outcome end up better for Ukraine than if Harris had won? Unlikely because Putin will only agree a deal that rewards his aggression. But counterfactuals are always tricky.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
I think the outline of Trump's approach is becoming clearer - offer Putin the eastern provinces and threaten massive retaliation if he refuses or later reneges on the cease-fire. Invite Western Europe to reinforce the rest of Ukraine (90%?). Details - is Ukraine able to join NATO? does Russia get the punitive sanctions reversed? - remain completely unclear, and might take years to unravel.
The problem is that if there’s European troops on the border and security guarantees, then Ukraine doesn’t need NATO because it’s de facto within the tent anyway. And with Finland having now joined NATO as well, from Putin’s perspective he can’t sell that picture of a strategic end state as a win.
The negotiated settlement is going to be a tricky one if we are to avoid Russian humiliation. And obviously we have to.
Putin can’t accept Ukraine in NATO.
To him, that would be a massive defeat. A massive defeat equals his death by window.
So a I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-NATO for Ukraine might work.
What will work on Trump is that if he cuts off Ukraine, Russia will restate the fall of Kabul before he leaves the Whitehouse. Hence the suggestions of big threats to Russia as well.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
That would be a good outcome
Indeed. But I am sceptical, because it would also be against what Trump, and especially the GOP, have spent the last few years saying.
After all, the GOP could have pressurised Biden to flood Ukraine with weaponry. Instead, they starved Ukraine of weapons for months.
Yes. But that would fit with standard GOP misdemeanor, of blocking any effective action by a Dem President, so that they can take the credit for it under a GOP President instead. We shouldn't expect consistency from the GOP.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Musk also has a line to Putin and has spoken of enabling ceasefires - indeed he mapped out one scenario for a truce and was widely mocked for it. I’m not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
Saving Russian lives would have been a bad thing.
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
That’s… quite repulsive. Sorry. But it is
True though. Viewed selfishly, the major western strategic success has been to kill as many Russians, and destroy as much Russian kit, as possible.
Might leave a bad taste in the mouth, but achieving that has made Europe safer. It’s why donating NATO kit to Ukraine always made sense. We bought it to kill Russians and destroy Russian kit. Might as well do that job for us in Ukraine.
A T80 destroyed there is one we don’t have to blow up in Warsaw.
The “vast destruction of human lives” is never a “huge success” - whether they are Russian, British, Palestinian, Jewish, Gambian, Azerbaijani or Bhutanese
The statement is repulsive
Its people with your mentality which the likes of Putin and Hitler have always preyed upon.
I'm sure you regard yourself as humane, they think that you're weak.
Er, ok
I’m on record as thinking that the British bombing of Germany was entirely justified. They sowed the wind etc
I just don’t regard all those dead Germans as a “huge success”. A grim and hideous necessity, more like
I object to your language, and language is important. You are dehumanising Russians
While I agree with that, it has to sit alongside accepting that, while the invasion continues, killing as many of the invaders as possible is indeed a necessity. Grim and hideous as it is.
Be aware, though, that existence for many Ukrainians under Russian occupation is also grim and hideous.
A member of Trump’s new cabinet says Trump will end the Ukraine war by threatening Putin that he will flood Ukraine with weaponry
“Sebastian Gorka, who Trump just named a Director of national security policy in the White House, says that Trump's strategy for ending the Ukraine war will include threatening Putin to provide Ukraine with exponentially more military "aid"”
If Trump turns out to be BETTER for Ukraine than Biden that will explode heads
If it happens, I will be pleased. Surpised, too - but I would expect my head to remain intact.
Note, though, the source. Gorka is not exactly reliable. Or even sane.
I think the outline of Trump's approach is becoming clearer - offer Putin the eastern provinces and threaten massive retaliation if he refuses or later reneges on the cease-fire. Invite Western Europe to reinforce the rest of Ukraine (90%?). Details - is Ukraine able to join NATO? does Russia get the punitive sanctions reversed? - remain completely unclear, and might take years to unravel.
Again, you say: "offer Putin the eastern provinces". That can mean many things; but if you meant 'the territory Russia currently holds', then that's what you should say. The 'eastern provinces' is a much larger area, and you would be giving well over a million Ukrainians to an aggressor imperialist and fascist state.
I meant the territory that Russia currently holds (at the time of the agreement), plus the area of non-Ukraine Russia currently held by Ukraine. I don't see any other deal being even reluctantly acceptable to both sides. If coupled with a threat of massive US escalation if refused by Russia or total withdrawal of support if opposed by Ukraine, that would have a chance of reluctant acceptance by both sides.
B&Q owner Kingfisher has warned it expects a £45m hit from tax raids in the UK and France.
Shares in the company, which also runs Screwfix and Castorama DIY stores, fell 11.8pc after it said Rachel Reeves’s plan to increase employer National Insurance contributions would cost it £31m in its next financial year.
It said proposed tax moves in France, where the government is plotting changes to social taxes and delaying the abolishment of the CVAE sales tax, would deal a £14m blow to its profits.
“It now expects adjusted profit before tax of £510m to £540m, down from £510m to £550m.”
Only £500m profit? My heart bleeds
So, the £45m hit will reduce profits by £0 (bottom end estimate) to £10m (top end estimate)? Or is that ~£500m only the France figure? Even there, the £14m 'hit' doesn't shift the bottom end of profit expectations and hits the top end by £10m. I'm only a lowly scientist and not good with fancy accountancy maths, but I can't quite see how that adds up.
The Kingfisher group is global. As well as UK and France, they have big chains in other EU countries, Turkey and the Middle East.
Sure, but that doesn't explain the maths. If those are global profits then for the £45m alleged hit from UK and France to have a much smaller impact on expected global profits then you need either a direct benefit in those other markets or - and maybe this is the explanation - uprating in those other markets and/or UK/France for unrelated reasons since the original profit estimates. But the quotes from the article don't make that clear (I haven't seen the source, which I don't think was linked).
Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel tells the BBC’s Katya Adler the gas deals she made with Russia were intended to help German firms and kept the peace with Moscow, as she insisted the war with Ukraine would have started earlier if she hadn’t blocked Kyiv’s entry into Nato in 2008.
Comments
And as you point out, you could quite easily argue the opposite of most of them.
I suspect all of that, though, is pretty pointless until we see what the new administration does.
Get Musk interested in building rockets with an explosive payload, it's not an impossible reverse ferret. And Ukraine are obviously working hard diplomatically to help Trump agree to help them, by creating different narratives that appeal to him, since defending democracy doesn't motivate him.
Trump isn't actually particularly anti-abortion by GOP standards, his public musings are not dissimilar to Ronald Reagan which is more pro choice than most non Trump GOP I think.
If at the end of four years:
1. There is a free and fair election, won by the Democratic nominee, to whom there is a peaceful transfer of power.
2. There is not a global economic crisis precipitated by a Trump trade war.
3. Russia do not occupy Kharkiv.
Then the second Trump Presidency will have surprised on the upside. I don't think it's a high bar, but I have reasonable fears on all three counts.
And re-invades a month later.
not sure why. At least he tried and if it had somehow worked it would have saved many thousands of lives
2026 and 2028 could be very different - as we are now seeing, the successor Governments aren't finding it easy either so will we see a return of the previous party (under new leadership) or will dissatisfied voters look for other solutions in other places?
It's going to be fascinating to see how this goes - as an example, Norway votes next September. The Conservatives lost to a coalition of the Social Democrats and Centre Party in 2021 but soon established big poll leads in Opposition. However, the latest polls show them running behind the Progress Party (Reform). From 2013-20 Progress was the junior partner in the Conservative led Government of Ema Solberg but on current polling Progress would win more seats and the Conservatives would be the junior partner.
Remember that Putin has several attack vectors. First is via political interests, often using bots, shills, agents and useful idiots. Second may be via corruption of people in 'enemy' countries, sabotage, etc. I fear we are seeing more of this atm. Physically attacking them is only the last resort.
*If* Putin accepts a ceasefire on current lines, he will work to destroy the consensus in the west that enables Ukraine to keep those lines.
The Ukraine-Russia land border is 1226 miles long. The Ukraine Belarus land border is a further 674 miles long, through which Russia invaded last time.
And that's before we may add Crimea to the ceasefire line. Or the 759 miles of the Ukraine-Transnistria border if we are being comprehensive.
My (and the rest of us?) concerns are that that is exactly what a clueless narcissist like Mr Trump might do.
Remember Trump asked his aides if he could nuke a hurricane
Trump truly is the “madman theory” being fully tested
The Democrats also allowed themselves to be seen as the party of the economic establishment, and there is a strong underlying sense of anger at economic elites and an economy that doesn't work for most people. The reality is that the Republicans are at least as much the party of big business and I think voters will figure that out in the next four years. Trump's proposed solution - deregulation, further fiscal profligacy, tariffs and mass deportations - won't deliver the results dome of his supporters are hoping for.
It is possible that a Ukrainian victory against Russia, with US support, would have ameliorated much of that damage. So I don't think your chain of logic is impossible.
But Trump has so much evident admiration for Putin, that I'm not convinced he wants to defeat him.
Trump and Republicans the
election and lost it for Harris and
the Democrats. Abortion didn't
make the difference for either
side. Statewide different states have voted for different positions, not alll for loosening. Florida voted for tighter immigration restrictions
Korea has no nukes and is the vulnerable southern end of a peninsula - with only the sea beyond
If Trump says to the European half of NATO “you’ve got the men and the money, it’s now your job to defend Ukraine” he’d be correct on all points
Whatever happens European defence budgets are going up
Shares in the company, which also runs Screwfix and Castorama DIY stores, fell 11.8pc after it said Rachel Reeves’s plan to increase employer National Insurance contributions would cost it £31m in its next financial year.
It said proposed tax moves in France, where the government is plotting changes to social taxes and delaying the abolishment of the CVAE sales tax, would deal a £14m blow to its profits.
Only £500m profit? My heart bleeds
With cases like Hedingham, the DTel overlooks the extent to which IHT is an avoidable tax, that the family choose to live in this position which has upside as well as downside.
Unless you see the accounts, know their lifestyle and know what legal and finacial advice they are acting on (and this never happens) it is best to be wary.
As an example, Surrey County Council is Conservative controlled but most of the eleven Boroughs and Districts are run by non-Conservative administrations and I can assure you relations between the County and the Districts make the stand off on the Korean Peninsula look positively friendly.
The County wants to take over the Districts and Boroughs and become like a Somerset or Cornwall while the Districts and Boroughs want two or three unitaries covering the area of Surrey so I don't see much hope of an agreement in the short term. Of course, were the Conservatives to lose control of the County next year, it might be different.
Presumably if areas aren't "willing" to "participate", the current arrangements will remain or will the Government force Unitary authorities on the unwilling areas?
The vast destruction of Russian equipment and lives has been a huge success for the western world.
You should not that the areas being talked about those that don’t have mayors.
One argument I thought interesting was the line Ezra Klein took recently that Democrats need to get better about delivering more quickly and effectively -- I think he said that people living in D controlled states swung more towards the Rs than those living in R controlled states. If voters don't think their local governments are working very effectively for them then why would they vote for the same party nationally? Biden may have passed the Inflation Reduction Act, but the whole process state and institutions move so slowly that voters scarcely got to see any benefits appearing from it. Delivery matters, not just passing legislation...
That would also be the end of NATO, of course.
I generally agree the flag button is ridiculous… but right now I want to flag that hideous remark by @another_richard
The basic error for me, though, was the vagueness of the Harris campaign - essentially it came down to "don't vote for lunatic Trump, vote for my general approach". I struggle to think of any attractive promises that Harris made. It might have been enough, given how extreme and mendacious even many Republicans see Trump, but ultimastely people vote for an agenda - even if they're not sure it will work - rather than a general impression. That is arguably more important than conventional left/right measures.
And a far more sophisticated airforce, army and navy than either Ukraine or N Korea, along with a border a tenth of the size to defend.
The comparison just doesn't apply.
If either Europe of NATO were fully committed to Ukraine's defence, that might be different. Quite clearly neither are - or they'd already have defeated the invasion.
You've yet to articulate any kind of plan which would bring about anything other than a temporary pause in the fighting.
* The only exception I can think of is the Turkish drone company who donated some drones after the public in the Baltic States donated money to buy some for Ukraine.
eg The exercise in the late noughties for several counties, mismanaged by Hazel Blears.
Rarely has local government reorganisation been so botched as this hasty exercise, which has been inflicted on six other counties as well as Cornwall. In Northumberland, Durham, Shropshire and Wiltshire, single unitary authorities will be created on 1 April, while in Cheshire and Bedfordshire, counties are being split in two, with four new unitaries emerging.
Initially meant to streamline service delivery, and bring economies of scale to around 3 million people, the exercise has proved woefully partial and poorly thought out. Why, for instance, create unitary councils in only seven areas, while leaving the biggest counties - such as Kent and Essex, each with populations of 1.3 million - unscathed? Why not go for a big bang and create a system of unitary local government throughout England - currently a patchwork quilt of small district authorities and large metropolitan districts - as in Scotland and Wales?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2009/feb/18/local-government
Who knows where the US-S.Korea Mutual Defense* Treaty will be after 4 years of unpredictable Donald though?
*for Luckyguy that is the official spelling.
Turn it round: why did Trump win?
Trump won because he combined the GOP vote with the NOTA vote.
Might leave a bad taste in the mouth, but achieving that has made Europe safer. It’s why donating NATO kit to Ukraine always made sense. We bought it to kill Russians and destroy Russian kit. Might as well do that job for us in Ukraine.
A T80 destroyed there is one we don’t have to blow up in Warsaw.
"The Ukrainians need weapons now. The US should do everything possible to support them. Ukrainian victory would be the best deterrent to future Chinese aggression."
https://x.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1860804281516851328
Did the treaty suffer significant degradation by 2020?
The statement is repulsive
Any scheme for quickly ending the war without serious commitments on the part of the west is "fantastic".
The idea that Trump could impose a deal and simultaneously walk away from any such commitments, just because he's "unpredictable", is nonsense.
I mentioned the other day that I had seen a presentation around delivery rider problems in cities, and someone being tasked with 100-200 delivers per shift.
The video is not yet up.
But I just had a parcel delivered by the Royal Mail, and my delivery man says he has more than 100 to do today.
It's very Golgafrincham B-Ark - 300 pre-injection alco swabs, which have come in a cardboard envelope totally loose with mini flatpack boxes still in their flat state amongst the product. Constructed packing boxes would not go through a post box, and would be a "small parcel", not a "large letter" as they would be more than 25mm thick.
Either the enemy's will, their equipment or their manpower.
The three are usually linked.
What do you think this country's strategy was in the world wars ?
Kill Germans, kill Germans, kill Germans.
In the second war we were able to outsource most of the killing of German soldiers to the Soviets while we undertook the deliberate and indiscriminate destruction of German cities and killing of German civilians.
In both wars we deliberately starved Germany through blockade.
which means what, exactly.
Blunting its war machine means killing its soldiers and destroying its kit.
That’s what you do in a war. You kill the other side.
Edit - that’s why you should try to avoid them. But once you’re in one, your business is killing the enemy.
Anyone so far down the rabbit hole in this conflict that they are celebrating deaths needs to give their head a wobble and go out for some fresh air.
https://ceias.eu/taiwans-aid-diplomacy-to-ukraine-catching-two-birds-with-one-stone/
Total value over almost 3 years $125 million, compared with say us at more than £3 billion/year.
Of course the Taiwanese need to keep most of their weapons but they could certainly be doing much more, e.g. buying weapons in third countries and sending them to Ukraine.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e8y1qly52o
Historically the basic local unit that makes most sense are the county (as mostly pre 1970) since they basically are a continuation of pre 1066 configurations. Few abiding loyalties have been created since then (though London and some cities are special cases).
The most sensible thing to do (as has been done but not brilliantly with Cumbria recently) is to look at the old county structure and see how to use it with as few alterations as possible to the pre 1970 set up to fulfil today's needs.
I doubt if even this will restore the long forgotten county of my birth, Middlesex but it would be a start.
Those dead Russians are not Vladimir Putin, they are generally poor badly armed conscripts from the Russian fringes and boondocks. Frightened, lonely, cold. Sons, brothers, fathers
It is, arguably, a necessary evil that they die en masse. It is not “a huge success”
Here ends your Thought for the Day
I might put my own thoughts to a header at some point in not too distant.
But today sadly is taken up with annual tax self-assessment form. Grrrr...
The negotiated settlement is going to be a tricky one if we are to avoid Russian humiliation. And obviously we have to.
I'm sure you regard yourself as humane, they think that you're weak.
For that reason, he deserves no other credit than any other businessmen providing material to the Ukrainians.
I’m on record as thinking that the British bombing of Germany was entirely justified. They sowed the wind etc
I just don’t regard all those dead Germans as a “huge success”. A grim and hideous necessity, more like
I object to your language, and language is important. You are dehumanising Russians
On the drink spiking. A number of years ago, in Northern Peru, there was a spike in crime. Due to increasing wealth, people were starting to use shiny new shopping centres. Car jacking on the roads out of the shopping centres became a thing.
The Peruvian government did what it always does - flips from liberalism to er….
They sent a top police general to take over.
- He started by pedestrianising some bits of the regional capital. Anyone trying to ride a moped/motorbikes through the areas would have a chain lifted by a policemen to impede their progress. This killed some bag snatchers
- He cracked down on police corruption and sent a number of policemen to prison. Which is pretty much a death sentence for a cop in Peru.
- He filled taxis with policemen in plain clothes. When they got car jacked, they started shooting.
Of course, being Peru, a couple of years of low crime later, they tried to prosecute the police general for being naughty. He retired to Florida. There are a large and growing number of startups, in the US, which are using the template of no pyramids and fight the requirements getting into military contracting.
Solid rocket motors for 10% of the usual prices etc….
The only good Russian solder is either a deserter or a corpse.
You’re obviously arguing for the sake of it because you’re bored and I won’t bite any further. I only paid for the five minute argument.
But anyway I agree the argument is going nowhere. I’ve made my point
And the cost? The RAF lost 58,438 men. In terms of results the campaign saved many. many more allied lives. But soldiers who didn't get killed by an 88mm in Normandy don't show up in the stats, do they?
I think people think the bombing war failed, because on one level, the air way strategists were trying to show that air power alone could win the war. (Arguably in late 45 in Japan it did.) By that mark it was a failure, but thats a high mark.
Be nice to people when they do things you want them to do.
A very safe, liberal, hypocritical gloss on reality.
Call it what you want - self defence, reaping the whirlwind, justifiable retaliation, necessary evil.
But the western world is in a better position because all those Russians are dead and all that Russian equipment is destroyed.
Will the outcome end up better for Ukraine than if Harris had won? Unlikely because Putin will only agree a deal that rewards his aggression. But counterfactuals are always tricky.
To him, that would be a massive defeat. A massive defeat equals his death by window.
So a I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-Not-NATO for Ukraine might work.
What will work on Trump is that if he cuts off Ukraine, Russia will restate the fall of Kabul before he leaves the Whitehouse. Hence the suggestions of big threats to Russia as well.
Be aware, though, that existence for many Ukrainians under Russian occupation is also grim and hideous.
That said, I'm guessing, and nobody really knows!