I'm not totally panicking about the US and Trump because, regardless of the damage they are doing atm, and my belief that the lead European powers need to up their game and police their own backyard, I don't think that's where most Americans are at, who are quite reasonable, share most of our values, and have a fondness for their European roots.
We just don't know how long it will last, or where we'll be when it finishes. Which is why we must act now.
And this is the point, we need to stop being beholden to the US agenda as it is no longer reliable and hasn't been for 20 years. We need to step up and that means cutting welfare spending to fund our national defence. It's time for the "sick" to go back to work.
If the sick didn’t have to spend so long on a waiting list, they could go back to work sooner.
You really think all the people on waiting lists are non-workers who want to work and can be easily cured ?
Not all, but many are. Those above retirement age on waiting lists are having a knock on effect too. Many of their carers are of working age.
I have recent experience of an easy to fix ailment, and me saying to my GP “I can’t really work with this, can we get it fixed” and him apologetically basically telling me I’d be parked on sick leave, on a waiting list, for months.
I had never thought about it until it happened to me, but many must be in that frustrated position.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).
That's complete nonsense. Russia poses a naval and air threat to our borders and allowing them to takeover Eastern Europe hurts our security and our economy. Beyond our own self interest, allowing tens of millions to be subjugated by a despot is fundamentally wrong, Europe is faced with a similar choice to 1939. We needed US support against Nazi Germany, we don't need US support against a clapped out Russia we can step up and do it ourselves.
Piss off. What navy do they have left that floats? Assuming that they even can take over Eastern Europe (they can't even do Ukraine), how does that harm our economy? How does that harm our security? The best UK threat that number 1 Russia policeman Josias could come up yesterday was that they might subvert an election through social media. And I don't think he'd miss a trick if there was one.
There's certainly a moral case for containing them, but you have not successfully made a national interest argument.
So our subsea communications lines have been cut by who, Sweden? Our airspace has been buzzed constantly by Finland? We depend heavily on subsea power transmission too, it's a huge dependency on not having Russian ships destroying our interconnectors and subsea infrastructure.
Do you really think that Eastern Europe run by Putin acolytes would trade with us or buy British goods and services? There's a huge economic downside to allowing Putin to invade and subvert Eastern European countries, it is in out national interest to defend them.
You keep talking peace and yet your idea of peace is millions of people being subjugated and our own security and economy being put at risk. You're as bad as Corbyn.
Sorry but this is weak. 'Buzzing'? Hasn't that been common practice for decades? If Russia went into full sabotage mode against British interests, I assume we'd do the same to them. And assuming Russia managed to subjugate Eastern Europe, (which I am absolutely not) how on earth do you know who those satellite states would trade with?
You do accidentally make a good point about subsea interconnectors though - I have always been strongly against them, their vulnerability to hostile attack (not just by Russia) being just one good reason among many.
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Not just NATO European states but all NATO states.
What's wrong with China or India doing it?
Putin's lickspittles? Marvellous idea.
I hope you're joking. Putin must be some kind of demon if he controls both China and India. He probably has more influence in the USA than in either of those countries. Does he own the Pope too?
Clearly Putin derangement syndrome exists.
So how much military assistance have the world's two most populous countries supplied to Ukraine? Or are they too busy buying Russian oil to have got round to it yet?
Modi is a fascist. He likes to hobnob with other fascists.
Other things being equal, it's better to have a country enforce the ceasefire that has been neutral. China hasn't been neutral, but they given less assistance to Russia than the US and other NATO countries have to Ukraine, and less than Iran and North Korea have given to Russia, although tbf I wouldn't be surprised if they flashed a little bit of a pale green light in Pyongyang's direction regarding the NK assistance. But the idea of Poland or Germany enforcing the ceasefire would be absurd. I can't think of many better countries to step up and do it than China and India.
India is the most Pro-Putin country outside Russia.
Apart from Belarus
Though if you actually asked the people there you might find that they are not that keen.
Why do you hate Zelenskyy so much? You were positively gleeful the other day when you thought Ukraine had lost, and took the p*ss out of him.
I don't hate him.
It was just totally obvious Ukraine couldn't win and the loss of all the brave soldiers is such a waste when the outcome was never going to be a win or draw against the man who would carry on for as long as it took to portray the Result as a Russian win.
Why was it obvious Ukraine couldn't win? (or can't, as it's not over). It's been three years now, and Ukraine, with only limited support, has utterly shown Russia up. With more support, they would have (and can) win.
I mean, do you actually think this has been a 'victory' for Russia?
And yes, given your words the other day, I do think you hate Zelenskyy.
I do wonder why the Palestinians in Gaza mean so much to you, but the Ukrainians in Bucha and (well, all over Ukraine...) are below your contempt.
One conflict is not a war but a genocide with far more civilians killed than combatants.
The war in Ukraine needs to end and there is only one way that can happen. The cessation of the killing is the common theme. IMO the Ukranians are better off alive rather than dead
The war in Ukraine is a genocide, as defined by the UN. But not one you care about, apparently, because it's being done by people you admire.
I don't admire Putin he is a fascist.
Jezza of course has been his longest fiercest critic and as usual he is spot on.
And you are a white feather apologist...
Is name calling all you have left.
Attitudes like your are why sane people despise the hard left and why you will never get socialism in
A Ugandan judge who is studying for a PhD at Oxford University and sits on UN criminal tribunals is facing charges of trafficking a young woman to be her slave.
Lydia Mugambe was appointed two years ago to the UN court that deals with residual matters from the criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. She is understood to be a PhD research student at Oxford’s law faculty while on sabbatical from her main role as a high court judge in Uganda.
Mugambe, 49, is accused of taking advantage of her status in the “most egregious way” by preventing a young Ugandan woman from holding down steady employment and forcing her to work unpaid as her maid and to provide childcare.
Prosecutors have alleged that Mugambe intended from the start of her relationship with the woman to obtain “someone to make her life easier and at the least possible cost to herself”.
Mugambe is also accused of attempting to intimidate the alleged victim, who cannot be named, into dropping the case.
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
Regardless of all that, I hope he recovers soon.
Hopefully Pope France recovers but if not it's always fascinating to see the "Conclave" and the white smoke.
I've long thought the Conservative Party should deploy the grey/white smoke trick for their seemingly never ending, insufferable leadership contests... 😂
Blue smoke?
Why not? Would be better than Lady Brady turning up every couple of years to tell us who's leading Con now...
I'm not totally panicking about the US and Trump because, regardless of the damage they are doing atm, and my belief that the lead European powers need to up their game and police their own backyard, I don't think that's where most Americans are at, who are quite reasonable, share most of our values, and have a fondness for their European roots.
We just don't know how long it will last, or where we'll be when it finishes. Which is why we must act now.
And this is the point, we need to stop being beholden to the US agenda as it is no longer reliable and hasn't been for 20 years. We need to step up and that means cutting welfare spending to fund our national defence. It's time for the "sick" to go back to work.
If the sick didn’t have to spend so long on a waiting list, they could go back to work sooner.
You really think all the people on waiting lists are non-workers who want to work and can be easily cured ?
Not all, but many are. Those above retirement age on waiting lists are having a knock on effect too. Many of their carers are of working age.
Perhaps we should give priority treatment to those who are in paid employment.
It would also have the advantage of discouraging too early retirement.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).
And we know what you'd have been saying in September 1939.
It's definitely what I'd have been saying in 1914, when foolish warmongers thought a jolly war on the continent would blow the cobwebs away and toughen us up a bit. Followed by The Somme, mustard gas, and the end of Britain's remarkable and peace-promoting leadership of the world economy. And without which there would have been no Hitler.
You might want to think what German war aims were in 1914. And consider how they treated occupied countries. And what they extracted from Russia in 1918. Nazi Germany didn’t spring out of nothing. The Germany of WW1 was not some cuddly set of chaps, just on the wrong side.
And? It didn't do the USA any harm to stand on the sidelines and get rich supplying munitions, joining later to deliver the decisive blow. It didn't do them any harm as far as posterity is concerned either. Those who suggest that I'm a would-be Nazi appeaser seem to have very little cricitism of the US war records.
Revealing that you wouldn’t have given a shit for the Belgians, or the French, the Poles, the Russians either in 1914 or presumably 1939. Good clarification, thanks.
Funny, I hear you condemning me for invented cowardice that you ascribe to a past version of me, but I've never heard you utter a single critique of how the USA handled either world war.
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Not just NATO European states but all NATO states.
What's wrong with China or India doing it?
Putin's lickspittles? Marvellous idea.
I hope you're joking. Putin must be some kind of demon if he controls both China and India. He probably has more influence in the USA than in either of those countries. Does he own the Pope too?
Clearly Putin derangement syndrome exists.
So how much military assistance have the world's two most populous countries supplied to Ukraine? Or are they too busy buying Russian oil to have got round to it yet?
Modi is a fascist. He likes to hobnob with other fascists.
India has always had a very close (post colonial) relationship with Russia, and seems to much prefer them to us (perhaps for understandable reasons). This was the case when they were a communist dictatorship, so there's not much reason why it would have changed now they're an authoritarian state with the remnants of a democracy.
In my opinion we need to be a good deal less starry-eyed about India. They do not wish us well. We should at the very least not be trying to exercise 'soft power' by hosing aid money at them when they have a space programme. The same goes for China.
We don't hose aid money at India.
"The British Government stopped providing traditional development aid to India in 2015. Most UK funding to India is in the form of investments in priority areas like climate change. These investments have the dual aims of supporting development and backing private enterprises with the potential to be commercially viable, creating new partners, markets and jobs for the UK as well as India. They also generate returns which the British Government can reinvest in India or elsewhere. To date we have invested £330 million and over £100 million has been returned. We expect to get all our investments back over time."
The pressure for labour to drop their red lines just keeps building and building. It is turning from a whisper into a roar. There is no way that policy survives till GE2029
P.s. i will bet you the next statista poll has stay out at well below 30% due to the new world order that has appeared since Jan 20.
The more immediate questions are firstly, is the Government really committed to a significant investment in defence and rearmament, or is this all just grandstanding to conceal an actual commitment of tuppence ha'penny; and secondly, if they are, who gets the pleasure of being rinsed to pay for it? The answers will tell us a lot about what their priorities really are.
I don’t consider having to pay for my country to protect me and my family as being rinsed.
But most voters, if asked, will resent coughing up, on one or more of the following grounds:
1. This is a waste of money, it should be spent on me/things I approve of instead. 2. I shouldn't be asked to pay more because I am genuinely hard up already and/or I already pay too much. 3. Why am I being asked for all this extra money when it could be raised from better targets (other people more deserving of being soaked and/or areas of spending that ought to be cut?)
I, for example, am prepared to cough up and think it's a worthwhile expense, but if the Government does what I suspect it will do and soaks earnings yet again, whilst leaving asset wealth and pensions untouched, then I'll be mightily pissed off with them.
So, as I said, whether the Government is prepared to raise the money in the first place, and who they take it from if they do, will tell us a lot about its character and priorities. Are they actually serious about defence or not? Who do they care about, and who are they willing to shit all over?
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Not just NATO European states but all NATO states.
What's wrong with China or India doing it?
Putin's lickspittles? Marvellous idea.
I hope you're joking. Putin must be some kind of demon if he controls both China and India. He probably has more influence in the USA than in either of those countries. Does he own the Pope too?
Clearly Putin derangement syndrome exists.
So how much military assistance have the world's two most populous countries supplied to Ukraine? Or are they too busy buying Russian oil to have got round to it yet?
Modi is a fascist. He likes to hobnob with other fascists.
India has always had a very close (post colonial) relationship with Russia, and seems to much prefer them to us (perhaps for understandable reasons). This was the case when they were a communist dictatorship, so there's not much reason why it would have changed now they're an authoritarian state with the remnants of a democracy.
In my opinion we need to be a good deal less starry-eyed about India. They do not wish us well. We should at the very least not be trying to exercise 'soft power' by hosing aid money at them when they have a space programme. The same goes for China.
We don't hose aid money at India.
"The British Government stopped providing traditional development aid to India in 2015. Most UK funding to India is in the form of investments in priority areas like climate change. These investments have the dual aims of supporting development and backing private enterprises with the potential to be commercially viable, creating new partners, markets and jobs for the UK as well as India. They also generate returns which the British Government can reinvest in India or elsewhere. To date we have invested £330 million and over £100 million has been returned. We expect to get all our investments back over time."
India has always had a very close (post colonial) relationship with Russia,
Not really true. When China invaded in 1962, who did Mr Nehru turn to in a panic regarding military assistance? The USSR? Nope. It was President Kennedy! He asked for B-47 bombers and a load of other hardware.
China unilaterally withdrew from most of the occupied/claimed areas after only a month, so the US assistance wasn't needed in the end. It was only in 1971 during the Bangladesh crisis that India formally signed a treaty with the USSR, as a counter to US support for the military regime in Pakistan (who were ruling Bangladesh at that time).
India has always had a very close (post colonial) relationship with Russia,
Not really true. When China invaded in 1962, who did Mr Nehru turn to in a panic regarding military assistance? The USSR? Nope. It was President Kennedy! He asked for B-47 bombers and a load of other hardware.
China unilaterally withdrew from most of the occupied/claimed areas after only a month, so the US assistance wasn't needed in the end. It was only in 1971 during the Bangladesh crisis that India formally signed a treaty with the USSR, as a counter to US support for the military regime in Pakistan (who were ruling Bangladesh at that time).
Interesting info, thanks. Please amend to 'for a long time' for the record.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).
And we know what you'd have been saying in September 1939.
It's definitely what I'd have been saying in 1914, when foolish warmongers thought a jolly war on the continent would blow the cobwebs away and toughen us up a bit. Followed by The Somme, mustard gas, and the end of Britain's remarkable and peace-promoting leadership of the world economy. And without which there would have been no Hitler.
You might want to think what German war aims were in 1914. And consider how they treated occupied countries. And what they extracted from Russia in 1918. Nazi Germany didn’t spring out of nothing. The Germany of WW1 was not some cuddly set of chaps, just on the wrong side.
And? It didn't do the USA any harm to stand on the sidelines and get rich supplying munitions, joining later to deliver the decisive blow. It didn't do them any harm as far as posterity is concerned either. Those who suggest that I'm a would-be Nazi appeaser seem to have very little cricitism of the US war records.
Revealing that you wouldn’t have given a shit for the Belgians, or the French, the Poles, the Russians either in 1914 or presumably 1939. Good clarification, thanks.
Funny, I hear you condemning me for invented cowardice that you ascribe to a past version of me, but I've never heard you utter a single critique of how the USA handled either world war.
I’m not calling you a coward - I don’t see where you get that from. I’m asserting that you are wrong about the consequences of not fighting. And you need to consider the history of US support for Britain in 1939-1941, before they formally entered the war.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).
And we know what you'd have been saying in September 1939.
It's definitely what I'd have been saying in 1914, when foolish warmongers thought a jolly war on the continent would blow the cobwebs away and toughen us up a bit. Followed by The Somme, mustard gas, and the end of Britain's remarkable and peace-promoting leadership of the world economy. And without which there would have been no Hitler.
Britain's problem was that if we'd sat the war out and Germany / Austria-Hungary had won, then the continent would have ended up dominated by a powerful enemy. If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option.
Neither France and certainly not Russia were Britain's allies prior to the outbreak of the first world war.
Well that’s one view of the Triple Entente. Not a formal alliance, for sure, but definitely on the same side. What is your point?
By the way did you know that there was no formal alliance of Britain and the USA in WW2? Oddly they get called allies armies all the time though.
It was a reply to FeersumEnjineeya who said "If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option."
Britain entered the war not out of fear of losing the trust of France and Russia (who like I say, were not formal allies, so there was no obligation), but out of fear of Germany defeating France, controlling the channel ports, and dominating Europe.
When you are actually fighting on the same side in a war in a coordinated manner, signing a formal defensive alliance is usually no longer needed to be called 'allies'.
The pressure for labour to drop their red lines just keeps building and building. It is turning from a whisper into a roar. There is no way that policy survives till GE2029
P.s. i will bet you the next statista poll has stay out at well below 30% due to the new world order that has appeared since Jan 20.
The more immediate questions are firstly, is the Government really committed to a significant investment in defence and rearmament, or is this all just grandstanding to conceal an actual commitment of tuppence ha'penny; and secondly, if they are, who gets the pleasure of being rinsed to pay for it? The answers will tell us a lot about what their priorities really are.
I don’t consider having to pay for my country to protect me and my family as being rinsed.
But most voters, if asked, will resent coughing up, on one or more of the following grounds:
1. This is a waste of money, it should be spent on me/things I approve of instead. 2. I shouldn't be asked to pay more because I am genuinely hard up already and/or I already pay too much. 3. Why am I being asked for all this extra money when it could be raised from better targets (other people more deserving of being soaked and/or areas of spending that ought to be cut?)
I, for example, am prepared to cough up and think it's a worthwhile expense, but if the Government does what I suspect it will do and soaks earnings yet again, whilst leaving asset wealth and pensions untouched, then I'll be mightily pissed off with them.
So, as I said, whether the Government is prepared to raise the money in the first place, and who they take it from if they do, will tell us a lot about its character and priorities. Are they actually serious about defence or not? Who do they care about, and who are they willing to shit all over?
If I was Starmer's speechwriter, I'd have him say something like this as he introduces an emergency wealth tax:
We are in a defining moment for our nation. I know that, whether you are rich or poor, you share the love that I have for this country.
Which is why I need to ask those of you who can to step up.
I am aware that many of you feel heavily taxed already. You are right to feel this way.
I am aware that a tax on your wealth will cause some of you to seriously consider emigrating. Before you do, I'd ask you to think of your family, your culture, your heritage.
I'd like you to consider how much you love this country and wish it well. And I'd ask you to consider the power that you have, through your wealth, to preserve the integrity and strength of our nation to meet the threats that we may face in coming years.
I'd ask you to be proud of the contribution you are making to our future, and generous in your willingness to make that contribution.
Noone listens to political speeches, so it'd make bugger all difference, but I'd enjoy hearing it.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).
And we know what you'd have been saying in September 1939.
It's definitely what I'd have been saying in 1914, when foolish warmongers thought a jolly war on the continent would blow the cobwebs away and toughen us up a bit. Followed by The Somme, mustard gas, and the end of Britain's remarkable and peace-promoting leadership of the world economy. And without which there would have been no Hitler.
You might want to think what German war aims were in 1914. And consider how they treated occupied countries. And what they extracted from Russia in 1918. Nazi Germany didn’t spring out of nothing. The Germany of WW1 was not some cuddly set of chaps, just on the wrong side.
And? It didn't do the USA any harm to stand on the sidelines and get rich supplying munitions, joining later to deliver the decisive blow. It didn't do them any harm as far as posterity is concerned either. Those who suggest that I'm a would-be Nazi appeaser seem to have very little cricitism of the US war records.
Revealing that you wouldn’t have given a shit for the Belgians, or the French, the Poles, the Russians either in 1914 or presumably 1939. Good clarification, thanks.
I think LuckyGuy has been clear all along that he is talking about what is in Britain's interest rather than what might help 1914 Russians (not sure Britain declaring war did anything to help them anyway)
Do you think it was in Britain's interest to fight WW1?
I don't know, but saving tsarist russia wouldn't be a reason, I don't think.
I'm not totally panicking about the US and Trump because, regardless of the damage they are doing atm, and my belief that the lead European powers need to up their game and police their own backyard, I don't think that's where most Americans are at, who are quite reasonable, share most of our values, and have a fondness for their European roots.
We just don't know how long it will last, or where we'll be when it finishes. Which is why we must act now.
And this is the point, we need to stop being beholden to the US agenda as it is no longer reliable and hasn't been for 20 years. We need to step up and that means cutting welfare spending to fund our national defence. It's time for the "sick" to go back to work.
If the sick didn’t have to spend so long on a waiting list, they could go back to work sooner.
You don't understand the nature of our problem if you think that's true. The PIP is basically UBI for people who can pass the assessment. The only way to end that spend is to shit can the PIP.
The Welfare State is Socialism the NHS is Socialism and people love em
Tough shit on you ultra right types who try to replace them
Good evening I see that PB is on the verge of declaring war on the US.
Nobody wants a war, but it is now plainly obvious to all but the most deluded that the US under Trump can not be trusted at all. So we need to be able to defend ourselves, and Europe including Ukraine, without the US to the greatest extent possible.
That said it wouldn't take much from Trump following through on some of his truly mad ideas to turn the US into an adversary of the UK. i.e. If the US does something nuts regarding Canada or Greenland.
Momentum Chaser @electricfutures · 4h So we're down to $6.5B in savings, and an alarming trend emerges:
@DOGE does not seem to understand how the government contracts they are canceling work. The savings they are claiming are not annual savings, but rather hypothetical savings if we spent every unobligated penny.
That's the kind of thing that makes me think "hmmm... if I'm just getting Elon's predilections, do I want to use it?"
This is probably overtly true of Grok, and could be implicitly true of the other LLMs. Relatedly, South Korea has banned DeepSeek.
The UK needs to develop its own sovereign LLM. It may be a vital source of trustworthy data. We cannot and should leave this to the Americans and the Chinese.
Man jailed for abusive emails to politicians ... A 39-year-old man has been jailed for sending malicious communications to a government minister, the mayor of London and a senior Met Police officer.
Jack Bennett, of Newlands Park, Seaton, Devon, pleaded guilty to four counts of sending malicious emails; one to Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips, one to Metropolitan police officer Matt Twist, and two counts to Mayor Sadiq Khan. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3rndxj705jo
"The Crown Prosecution Service said the email to Phillips was sent on 2 January, one day after Musk said the MP “deserves to be in prison” for denying requests to the Home Office for a public inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Oldham. The X owner also later called her a “rape genocide apologist”.
The prime minister suggested that a line has been crossed and that Musk’s comments had led to threats against the minister."
The case reached its conclusion very quickly, even if the chap did hold his hands up and the action took place in a magistrates' court. One of the emails was sent as recently as 2 January.
Gotta wonder whether the government would okay a Musk visit to this country.
They would love Musk. Government can put ordinary bloke in prison for calling Jess Phillips a "rape genocide apologist", but would welcome multimillionaire Elon Musk with open arms, despite him saying the exact same thing.
I'm not totally panicking about the US and Trump because, regardless of the damage they are doing atm, and my belief that the lead European powers need to up their game and police their own backyard, I don't think that's where most Americans are at, who are quite reasonable, share most of our values, and have a fondness for their European roots.
We just don't know how long it will last, or where we'll be when it finishes. Which is why we must act now.
And this is the point, we need to stop being beholden to the US agenda as it is no longer reliable and hasn't been for 20 years. We need to step up and that means cutting welfare spending to fund our national defence. It's time for the "sick" to go back to work.
If the sick didn’t have to spend so long on a waiting list, they could go back to work sooner.
You really think all the people on waiting lists are non-workers who want to work and can be easily cured ?
Not all, but many are. Those above retirement age on waiting lists are having a knock on effect too. Many of their carers are of working age.
Perhaps we should give priority treatment to those who are in paid employment.
It would also have the advantage of discouraging too early retirement.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).
And we know what you'd have been saying in September 1939.
It's definitely what I'd have been saying in 1914, when foolish warmongers thought a jolly war on the continent would blow the cobwebs away and toughen us up a bit. Followed by The Somme, mustard gas, and the end of Britain's remarkable and peace-promoting leadership of the world economy. And without which there would have been no Hitler.
Britain's problem was that if we'd sat the war out and Germany / Austria-Hungary had won, then the continent would have ended up dominated by a powerful enemy. If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option.
Neither France and certainly not Russia were Britain's allies prior to the outbreak of the first world war.
Well that’s one view of the Triple Entente. Not a formal alliance, for sure, but definitely on the same side. What is your point?
By the way did you know that there was no formal alliance of Britain and the USA in WW2? Oddly they get called allies armies all the time though.
It was a reply to FeersumEnjineeya who said "If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option."
Britain entered the war not out of fear of losing the trust of France and Russia (who like I say, were not formal allies, so there was no obligation), but out of fear of Germany defeating France, controlling the channel ports, and dominating Europe.
When you are actually fighting on the same side in a war in a coordinated manner, signing a formal defensive alliance is usually no longer needed to be called 'allies'.
And my point, which you have missed is that we were very much allies in all but name, as were were in WW2 with the USA.
That's the kind of thing that makes me think "hmmm... if I'm just getting Elon's predilections, do I want to use it?"
This is probably overtly true of Grok, and could be implicitly true of the other LLMs. Relatedly, South Korea has banned DeepSeek.
The UK needs to develop its own sovereign LLM. It may be a vital source of trustworthy data. We cannot and should leave this to the Americans and the Chinese.
What makes you think the UK (either private or state enterprise) entirely trustworthy? Or do you just mean relatively more trustworthy?
That's the kind of thing that makes me think "hmmm... if I'm just getting Elon's predilections, do I want to use it?"
This is probably overtly true of Grok, and could be implicitly true of the other LLMs. Relatedly, South Korea has banned DeepSeek.
The UK needs to develop its own sovereign LLM. It may be a vital source of trustworthy data. We cannot and should leave this to the Americans and the Chinese.
Wouldn't we just put our own spin on DeepSeek given that it's open source? Sadly the government cancelled the AI supercomputer, then realised the fuck up but fucked up further by picking a lesser build that won't be able to do very much.
The pressure for labour to drop their red lines just keeps building and building. It is turning from a whisper into a roar. There is no way that policy survives till GE2029
P.s. i will bet you the next statista poll has stay out at well below 30% due to the new world order that has appeared since Jan 20.
The more immediate questions are firstly, is the Government really committed to a significant investment in defence and rearmament, or is this all just grandstanding to conceal an actual commitment of tuppence ha'penny; and secondly, if they are, who gets the pleasure of being rinsed to pay for it? The answers will tell us a lot about what their priorities really are.
I don’t consider having to pay for my country to protect me and my family as being rinsed.
But most voters, if asked, will resent coughing up, on one or more of the following grounds:
1. This is a waste of money, it should be spent on me/things I approve of instead. 2. I shouldn't be asked to pay more because I am genuinely hard up already and/or I already pay too much. 3. Why am I being asked for all this extra money when it could be raised from better targets (other people more deserving of being soaked and/or areas of spending that ought to be cut?)
I, for example, am prepared to cough up and think it's a worthwhile expense, but if the Government does what I suspect it will do and soaks earnings yet again, whilst leaving asset wealth and pensions untouched, then I'll be mightily pissed off with them.
So, as I said, whether the Government is prepared to raise the money in the first place, and who they take it from if they do, will tell us a lot about its character and priorities. Are they actually serious about defence or not? Who do they care about, and who are they willing to shit all over?
If I was Starmer's speechwriter, I'd have him say something like this as he introduces an emergency wealth tax:
We are in a defining moment for our nation. I know that, whether you are rich or poor, you share the love that I have for this country.
Which is why I need to ask those of you who can to step up.
I am aware that many of you feel heavily taxed already. You are right to feel this way.
I am aware that a tax on your wealth will cause some of you to seriously consider emigrating. Before you do, I'd ask you to think of your family, your culture, your heritage.
I'd like you to consider how much you love this country and wish it well. And I'd ask you to consider the power that you have, through your wealth, to preserve the integrity and strength of our nation to meet the threats that we may face in coming years.
I'd ask you to be proud of the contribution you are making to our future, and generous in your willingness to make that contribution.
Noone listens to political speeches, so it'd make bugger all difference, but I'd enjoy hearing it.
If we had the same love for the uk that starmer does we would all be pissing on it.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).
And we know what you'd have been saying in September 1939.
It's definitely what I'd have been saying in 1914, when foolish warmongers thought a jolly war on the continent would blow the cobwebs away and toughen us up a bit. Followed by The Somme, mustard gas, and the end of Britain's remarkable and peace-promoting leadership of the world economy. And without which there would have been no Hitler.
Britain's problem was that if we'd sat the war out and Germany / Austria-Hungary had won, then the continent would have ended up dominated by a powerful enemy. If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option.
Neither France and certainly not Russia were Britain's allies prior to the outbreak of the first world war.
I'm not totally panicking about the US and Trump because, regardless of the damage they are doing atm, and my belief that the lead European powers need to up their game and police their own backyard, I don't think that's where most Americans are at, who are quite reasonable, share most of our values, and have a fondness for their European roots.
We just don't know how long it will last, or where we'll be when it finishes. Which is why we must act now.
And this is the point, we need to stop being beholden to the US agenda as it is no longer reliable and hasn't been for 20 years. We need to step up and that means cutting welfare spending to fund our national defence. It's time for the "sick" to go back to work.
If the sick didn’t have to spend so long on a waiting list, they could go back to work sooner.
You really think all the people on waiting lists are non-workers who want to work and can be easily cured ?
Not all, but many are. Those above retirement age on waiting lists are having a knock on effect too. Many of their carers are of working age.
Perhaps we should give priority treatment to those who are in paid employment.
It would also have the advantage of discouraging too early retirement.
Good evening I see that PB is on the verge of declaring war on the US.
Nobody wants a war, but it is now plainly obvious to all but the most deluded that the US under Trump can not be trusted at all. So we need to be able to defend ourselves, and Europe including Ukraine, without the US to the greatest extent possible.
That said it wouldn't take much from Trump following through on some of his truly mad ideas to turn the US into an adversary of the UK. i.e. If the US does something nuts regarding Canada or Greenland.
I'm not totally panicking about the US and Trump because, regardless of the damage they are doing atm, and my belief that the lead European powers need to up their game and police their own backyard, I don't think that's where most Americans are at, who are quite reasonable, share most of our values, and have a fondness for their European roots.
We just don't know how long it will last, or where we'll be when it finishes. Which is why we must act now.
And this is the point, we need to stop being beholden to the US agenda as it is no longer reliable and hasn't been for 20 years. We need to step up and that means cutting welfare spending to fund our national defence. It's time for the "sick" to go back to work.
If the sick didn’t have to spend so long on a waiting list, they could go back to work sooner.
You really think all the people on waiting lists are non-workers who want to work and can be easily cured ?
Not all, but many are. Those above retirement age on waiting lists are having a knock on effect too. Many of their carers are of working age.
Perhaps we should give priority treatment to those who are in paid employment.
It would also have the advantage of discouraging too early retirement.
I'm not totally panicking about the US and Trump because, regardless of the damage they are doing atm, and my belief that the lead European powers need to up their game and police their own backyard, I don't think that's where most Americans are at, who are quite reasonable, share most of our values, and have a fondness for their European roots.
We just don't know how long it will last, or where we'll be when it finishes. Which is why we must act now.
And this is the point, we need to stop being beholden to the US agenda as it is no longer reliable and hasn't been for 20 years. We need to step up and that means cutting welfare spending to fund our national defence. It's time for the "sick" to go back to work.
If the sick didn’t have to spend so long on a waiting list, they could go back to work sooner.
You don't understand the nature of our problem if you think that's true. The PIP is basically UBI for people who can pass the assessment. The only way to end that spend is to shit can the PIP.
Your ignorance is astounding. PIP has nothing to do with someone's capability for work. Plenty of people who work receive PIP; plenty who are unable to work are not eligible for PIP.
I find your reference to "pass the assessment" particularly offensive btw.
Konstantin Kisan has just superseded Mark Reckless in my enemies list.
Perhaps to my shame he had completely passed under my radar. Until you mentioned him I had never heard if him. What has he done to earn your opprobrium?
Can I just note one non-barking dog. SFAICS western media and governments are appearing to act on the unstated assumption that it is within the powers of Russia and USA together to 'stop the war', even though they are being very improper in doing so.
It isn't. It entirely lies within the collective power of Ukraine and other European powers (it doesn't need all of them), two of them nuclear, to continue the war.
I sort of hope they are playing at wait and see what emerges.
Russia and the US negotiate something
Europe says that’s unaccceptable and get some concessions
Ukraine says that’s unacceptable and gets more concessions
This assumes a rational negotiation… but if it falls apart what has Ukraine lost?
The war, because Trump will immediately support Putin. More congenial to him and didn't make him look an idiot over the Hunter Biden laptop.
Trump will not support Putin. He will withdraw support from Ukraine
Good evening I see that PB is on the verge of declaring war on the US.
Nobody wants a war, but it is now plainly obvious to all but the most deluded that the US under Trump can not be trusted at all. So we need to be able to defend ourselves, and Europe including Ukraine, without the US to the greatest extent possible.
That said it wouldn't take much from Trump following through on some of his truly mad ideas to turn the US into an adversary of the UK. i.e. If the US does something nuts regarding Canada or Greenland.
Very sweet.
Who do we need to "defend ourselves" against.
Russian sabotage of undersea cables. Russian intelligence operations against out communication and computer systems. Beefed up air defences. Larger security services countering Russian intelligence and sabotage campaigns. That's where I'd start.
That said why are you asking such a fucking stupid question in the first place?
Trump tonight: Ukraine shouldn’t have started this war.
Indeed. Apparently the correct response to a threatened invasion is to surrender one’s territory. Look out Taiwan.
China has said Ukraine must be involved in peace talks to be fair to Beijing and nor have the Chinese threatened to impose new tariffs on UK and European and Canadian imports and nor have they said they might take over Canada and Greenland.
As of tonight China is less of a threat to European and Canadian security and economies than Trump's US is
Trump tonight: Ukraine shouldn’t have started this war.
is that an actual quote? I mean it wouldn't surprise me from Trump, but I can't find it
It’s paraphrased but accurate. He said Zelensky could have avoided a war by making a deal to keep “almost all of the land”. He also said he was unpopular and illegitimate.
That's the kind of thing that makes me think "hmmm... if I'm just getting Elon's predilections, do I want to use it?"
This is probably overtly true of Grok, and could be implicitly true of the other LLMs. Relatedly, South Korea has banned DeepSeek.
The UK needs to develop its own sovereign LLM. It may be a vital source of trustworthy data. We cannot and should leave this to the Americans and the Chinese.
Wouldn't we just put our own spin on DeepSeek given that it's open source? Sadly the government cancelled the AI supercomputer, then realised the fuck up but fucked up further by picking a lesser build that won't be able to do very much.
Deepseek and Llama are both opensource, so yes one would just take them and chuck a bunch of training material with -importantly- "colour" spelt correctly, and we'd go from there.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).
And we know what you'd have been saying in September 1939.
It's definitely what I'd have been saying in 1914, when foolish warmongers thought a jolly war on the continent would blow the cobwebs away and toughen us up a bit. Followed by The Somme, mustard gas, and the end of Britain's remarkable and peace-promoting leadership of the world economy. And without which there would have been no Hitler.
Britain's problem was that if we'd sat the war out and Germany / Austria-Hungary had won, then the continent would have ended up dominated by a powerful enemy. If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option.
Neither France and certainly not Russia were Britain's allies prior to the outbreak of the first world war.
Well that’s one view of the Triple Entente. Not a formal alliance, for sure, but definitely on the same side. What is your point?
By the way did you know that there was no formal alliance of Britain and the USA in WW2? Oddly they get called allies armies all the time though.
It was a reply to FeersumEnjineeya who said "If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option."
Britain entered the war not out of fear of losing the trust of France and Russia (who like I say, were not formal allies, so there was no obligation), but out of fear of Germany defeating France, controlling the channel ports, and dominating Europe.
When you are actually fighting on the same side in a war in a coordinated manner, signing a formal defensive alliance is usually no longer needed to be called 'allies'.
And my point, which you have missed is that we were very much allies in all but name, as were were in WW2 with the USA.
I've answered your 'question' (were you interested in an answer?) as best I can, if you don't understand what I've written then let me know what you're having difficulty with and I'll see if I can help.
Trump tonight: Ukraine shouldn’t have started this war.
Indeed. Apparently the correct response to a threatened invasion is to surrender one’s territory. Look out Taiwan.
China has said Ukraine must be involved in peace talks to be fair to Beijing and nor have the Chinese threatened to impose new tariffs on UK and European and Canadian imports and nor have they said they might take over Canada and Greenland.
As of tonight China is less of a threat to European and Canadian security and economies than Trump's US is
Our allies Australia, Japan, and South Korea however…
There can't be any progress unless Ukraine is also included and Lavrov has already humiliated Rubio by refusing NATO European states permission to enforce a ceasefire deal there. Who else are they going to get to do it? China and India?
Not just NATO European states but all NATO states.
What's wrong with China or India doing it?
Putin's lickspittles? Marvellous idea.
I hope you're joking. Putin must be some kind of demon if he controls both China and India. He probably has more influence in the USA than in either of those countries. Does he own the Pope too?
Clearly Putin derangement syndrome exists.
So how much military assistance have the world's two most populous countries supplied to Ukraine? Or are they too busy buying Russian oil to have got round to it yet?
Modi is a fascist. He likes to hobnob with other fascists.
India has always had a very close (post colonial) relationship with Russia, and seems to much prefer them to us (perhaps for understandable reasons). This was the case when they were a communist dictatorship, so there's not much reason why it would have changed now they're an authoritarian state with the remnants of a democracy.
In my opinion we need to be a good deal less starry-eyed about India. They do not wish us well. We should at the very least not be trying to exercise 'soft power' by hosing aid money at them when they have a space programme. The same goes for China.
India’s relationship with Russia is driven by the threat from China
Trump tonight: Ukraine shouldn’t have started this war.
is that an actual quote? I mean it wouldn't surprise me from Trump, but I can't find it
Apols, more precisely Zelensky and his government who is to blame. In the synapses firing off randomly mess of Trump mind, perhaps a scapegoat emerging.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).
And we know what you'd have been saying in September 1939.
It's definitely what I'd have been saying in 1914, when foolish warmongers thought a jolly war on the continent would blow the cobwebs away and toughen us up a bit. Followed by The Somme, mustard gas, and the end of Britain's remarkable and peace-promoting leadership of the world economy. And without which there would have been no Hitler.
Britain's problem was that if we'd sat the war out and Germany / Austria-Hungary had won, then the continent would have ended up dominated by a powerful enemy. If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option.
Neither France and certainly not Russia were Britain's allies prior to the outbreak of the first world war.
Well that’s one view of the Triple Entente. Not a formal alliance, for sure, but definitely on the same side. What is your point?
By the way did you know that there was no formal alliance of Britain and the USA in WW2? Oddly they get called allies armies all the time though.
It was a reply to FeersumEnjineeya who said "If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option."
Britain entered the war not out of fear of losing the trust of France and Russia (who like I say, were not formal allies, so there was no obligation), but out of fear of Germany defeating France, controlling the channel ports, and dominating Europe.
When you are actually fighting on the same side in a war in a coordinated manner, signing a formal defensive alliance is usually no longer needed to be called 'allies'.
And my point, which you have missed is that we were very much allies in all but name, as were were in WW2 with the USA.
I've answered your 'question' (were you interested in an answer?) as best I can, if you don't understand what I've written then let me know what you're having difficulty with and I'll see if I can help.
I’m not sure why you dont consider Britain and France as allies in 1914? Are we allies now? I’d argue yes. You, I think, would say no.
Good evening I see that PB is on the verge of declaring war on the US.
Nobody wants a war, but it is now plainly obvious to all but the most deluded that the US under Trump can not be trusted at all. So we need to be able to defend ourselves, and Europe including Ukraine, without the US to the greatest extent possible.
That said it wouldn't take much from Trump following through on some of his truly mad ideas to turn the US into an adversary of the UK. i.e. If the US does something nuts regarding Canada or Greenland.
Very sweet.
Who do we need to "defend ourselves" against.
Russian sabotage of undersea cables. Russian intelligence operations against out communication and computer systems. Beefed up air defences. Larger security services countering Russian intelligence and sabotage campaigns. That's where I'd start.
That said why are you asking such a fucking stupid question in the first place?
Trump tonight: Ukraine shouldn’t have started this war.
Indeed. Apparently the correct response to a threatened invasion is to surrender one’s territory. Look out Taiwan.
China has said Ukraine must be involved in peace talks to be fair to Beijing and nor have the Chinese threatened to impose new tariffs on UK and European and Canadian imports and nor have they said they might take over Canada and Greenland.
As of tonight China is less of a threat to European and Canadian security and economies than Trump's US is
Our allies Australia, Japan, and South Korea however…
To be fair even Xi is more stable than Trump and Putin
Trump tonight: Ukraine shouldn’t have started this war.
Indeed. Apparently the correct response to a threatened invasion is to surrender one’s territory. Look out Taiwan.
China has said Ukraine must be involved in peace talks to be fair to Beijing and nor have the Chinese threatened to impose new tariffs on UK and European and Canadian imports and nor have they said they might take over Canada and Greenland.
As of tonight China is less of a threat to European and Canadian security and economies than Trump's US is
It’s a strange situation. At what point does one conclude that the US under Trump has gone from not supportive to actually being a hostile state? If and when that does happen, Europe frankly has no chance. Trump or not, the USA is the hegemon. If he wants Greenland he’ll take it.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).
And we know what you'd have been saying in September 1939.
It's definitely what I'd have been saying in 1914, when foolish warmongers thought a jolly war on the continent would blow the cobwebs away and toughen us up a bit. Followed by The Somme, mustard gas, and the end of Britain's remarkable and peace-promoting leadership of the world economy. And without which there would have been no Hitler.
Britain's problem was that if we'd sat the war out and Germany / Austria-Hungary had won, then the continent would have ended up dominated by a powerful enemy. If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option.
Neither France and certainly not Russia were Britain's allies prior to the outbreak of the first world war.
Well that’s one view of the Triple Entente. Not a formal alliance, for sure, but definitely on the same side. What is your point?
By the way did you know that there was no formal alliance of Britain and the USA in WW2? Oddly they get called allies armies all the time though.
It was a reply to FeersumEnjineeya who said "If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option."
Britain entered the war not out of fear of losing the trust of France and Russia (who like I say, were not formal allies, so there was no obligation), but out of fear of Germany defeating France, controlling the channel ports, and dominating Europe.
When you are actually fighting on the same side in a war in a coordinated manner, signing a formal defensive alliance is usually no longer needed to be called 'allies'.
And my point, which you have missed is that we were very much allies in all but name, as were were in WW2 with the USA.
I've answered your 'question' (were you interested in an answer?) as best I can, if you don't understand what I've written then let me know what you're having difficulty with and I'll see if I can help.
I’m not sure why you dont consider Britain and France as allies in 1914? Are we allies now? I’d argue yes. You, I think, would say no.
Of course Britain and France are allies, we're both members of NATO for a start. Why do you think I would say no?
There is a difference between having a friendly understanding and a formal alliance. If you think there is no difference you must be mystified by the fuss over whether Ukraine can join NATO.
I wonder if the strategists in the government or various associated wise heads war gamed this scenario. Whilst wild and depressing, it’s not unpredictable.
I wonder what China is thinking about this growing Trump-Putin love fest?
I can't believe they are happy at all.
There is method in Trump's madness. He's the Bismarck of our era.
Deploy the Swordfish!
One of the principal joys of PB is discovering random things you never knew, and never knew you didn't know, and never knew you wanted to know.
For example, why are the gun turrets missing from the wreck...
I have a perhaps incorrect memory that the Bismark capsized then sank with the turrets falling from the descending hulk. Weirdly it righted itself as it settled on the sea bottom,
I wonder what China is thinking about this growing Trump-Putin love fest?
I can't believe they are happy at all.
There is method in Trump's madness. He's the Bismarck of our era.
Deploy the Swordfish!
One of the principal joys of PB is discovering random things you never knew, and never knew you didn't know, and never knew you wanted to know.
For example, why are the gun turrets missing from the wreck...
I have a perhaps incorrect memory that the Bismark capsized then sank with the turrets falling from the descending hulk. Weirdly it righted self as it settled on the sea bottom,
This is indeed what Wikipedia says, but then raises the interesting fact that the turrets were not attached in any way. Gravity was the only thing keeping them in place
Trump tonight: Ukraine shouldn’t have started this war.
Indeed. Apparently the correct response to a threatened invasion is to surrender one’s territory. Look out Taiwan.
China has said Ukraine must be involved in peace talks to be fair to Beijing and nor have the Chinese threatened to impose new tariffs on UK and European and Canadian imports and nor have they said they might take over Canada and Greenland.
As of tonight China is less of a threat to European and Canadian security and economies than Trump's US is
It’s a strange situation. At what point does one conclude that the US under Trump has gone from not supportive to actually being a hostile state? If and when that does happen, Europe frankly has no chance. Trump or not, the USA is the hegemon. If he wants Greenland he’ll take it.
If not already there it is probably there now, Trump's US is increasingly a hostile state.
However having said that European and Canadian NATO armies combined are over a million strong excluding the USA, the UK and France have nuclear weapons.
The EU is one of the 3 big global economic powers, there is no reason they cannot push back against Trump
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).
And we know what you'd have been saying in September 1939.
It's definitely what I'd have been saying in 1914, when foolish warmongers thought a jolly war on the continent would blow the cobwebs away and toughen us up a bit. Followed by The Somme, mustard gas, and the end of Britain's remarkable and peace-promoting leadership of the world economy. And without which there would have been no Hitler.
Britain's problem was that if we'd sat the war out and Germany / Austria-Hungary had won, then the continent would have ended up dominated by a powerful enemy. If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option.
Neither France and certainly not Russia were Britain's allies prior to the outbreak of the first world war.
Well that’s one view of the Triple Entente. Not a formal alliance, for sure, but definitely on the same side. What is your point?
By the way did you know that there was no formal alliance of Britain and the USA in WW2? Oddly they get called allies armies all the time though.
It was a reply to FeersumEnjineeya who said "If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option."
Britain entered the war not out of fear of losing the trust of France and Russia (who like I say, were not formal allies, so there was no obligation), but out of fear of Germany defeating France, controlling the channel ports, and dominating Europe.
When you are actually fighting on the same side in a war in a coordinated manner, signing a formal defensive alliance is usually no longer needed to be called 'allies'.
And my point, which you have missed is that we were very much allies in all but name, as were were in WW2 with the USA.
I've answered your 'question' (were you interested in an answer?) as best I can, if you don't understand what I've written then let me know what you're having difficulty with and I'll see if I can help.
I’m not sure why you dont consider Britain and France as allies in 1914? Are we allies now? I’d argue yes. You, I think, would say no.
Of course Britain and France are allies, we're both members of NATO for a start. Why do you think I would say no?
There is a difference between having a friendly understanding and a formal alliance. If you think there is no difference you must be mystified by the fuss over whether Ukraine can join NATO.
BUT - yes in a way of course you are right we were sort of allies in 1914 too - as explained I was disagreeing with Feersumenjineeya's reasons for why Britain entered WW1. I don't think it was fear of losing the trust of our 'allies' Russia and France - who hadn't been 'allies' long, there was no formal pact, and in the case of Russia I think 'ally' even in inverted commas is anyway too strong a word.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).
And we know what you'd have been saying in September 1939.
It's definitely what I'd have been saying in 1914, when foolish warmongers thought a jolly war on the continent would blow the cobwebs away and toughen us up a bit. Followed by The Somme, mustard gas, and the end of Britain's remarkable and peace-promoting leadership of the world economy. And without which there would have been no Hitler.
Britain's problem was that if we'd sat the war out and Germany / Austria-Hungary had won, then the continent would have ended up dominated by a powerful enemy. If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option.
Neither France and certainly not Russia were Britain's allies prior to the outbreak of the first world war.
Well that’s one view of the Triple Entente. Not a formal alliance, for sure, but definitely on the same side. What is your point?
By the way did you know that there was no formal alliance of Britain and the USA in WW2? Oddly they get called allies armies all the time though.
It was a reply to FeersumEnjineeya who said "If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option."
Britain entered the war not out of fear of losing the trust of France and Russia (who like I say, were not formal allies, so there was no obligation), but out of fear of Germany defeating France, controlling the channel ports, and dominating Europe.
When you are actually fighting on the same side in a war in a coordinated manner, signing a formal defensive alliance is usually no longer needed to be called 'allies'.
And my point, which you have missed is that we were very much allies in all but name, as were were in WW2 with the USA.
I've answered your 'question' (were you interested in an answer?) as best I can, if you don't understand what I've written then let me know what you're having difficulty with and I'll see if I can help.
I’m not sure why you dont consider Britain and France as allies in 1914? Are we allies now? I’d argue yes. You, I think, would say no.
Of course Britain and France are allies, we're both members of NATO for a start. Why do you think I would say no?
There is a difference between having a friendly understanding and a formal alliance. If you think there is no difference you must be mystified by the fuss over whether Ukraine can join NATO.
BUT - yes in a way of course you are right we were sort of allies in 1914 too - as explained I was disagreeing with Feersumenjineeya's reasons for why Britain entered WW1. I don't think it was fear of losing the trust of our 'allies' Russia and France - who hadn't been 'allies' long, there was no formal pact, and in the case of Russia I think 'ally' even in inverted commas is anyway too strong a word.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).
And we know what you'd have been saying in September 1939.
It's definitely what I'd have been saying in 1914, when foolish warmongers thought a jolly war on the continent would blow the cobwebs away and toughen us up a bit. Followed by The Somme, mustard gas, and the end of Britain's remarkable and peace-promoting leadership of the world economy. And without which there would have been no Hitler.
Britain's problem was that if we'd sat the war out and Germany / Austria-Hungary had won, then the continent would have ended up dominated by a powerful enemy. If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option.
Neither France and certainly not Russia were Britain's allies prior to the outbreak of the first world war.
The Triple Entente dates from 1907 although it was based on mutual understand than a formal treaty
Man jailed for abusive emails to politicians ... A 39-year-old man has been jailed for sending malicious communications to a government minister, the mayor of London and a senior Met Police officer.
Jack Bennett, of Newlands Park, Seaton, Devon, pleaded guilty to four counts of sending malicious emails; one to Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips, one to Metropolitan police officer Matt Twist, and two counts to Mayor Sadiq Khan. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3rndxj705jo
"The Crown Prosecution Service said the email to Phillips was sent on 2 January, one day after Musk said the MP “deserves to be in prison” for denying requests to the Home Office for a public inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Oldham. The X owner also later called her a “rape genocide apologist”.
The prime minister suggested that a line has been crossed and that Musk’s comments had led to threats against the minister."
The case reached its conclusion very quickly, even if the chap did hold his hands up and the action took place in a magistrates' court. One of the emails was sent as recently as 2 January.
Gotta wonder whether the government would okay a Musk visit to this country.
Not seen all the details, obviously, but if there is no threat aren’t these just unpleasant opinions?
At the time Phillips was receiving threats after Musk's online abuse.
The Guardian piece has interesting background ... COVID, caring for mother after father had died, resulting isolation esp. caring for mother. Spending time online and snuffling up far right material - at the time eg Yaxley-Lennon would be putting out his well-produced videos, and there was the perpetual semi-fictional outrage feed from GBN and the rest.
And then wanting to have a go at targets, and email being the only way available. He was writing things like:
Appearing for Phillips, Hannah Cotton said the emails featured “serious racist abuse towards politicians” while the language used in the emails to Twist was “highly offensive”, with Bennett calling him a “rat willing to engage in strong-arm tactics against white English patriots”.
I can identify with the isolation ... I was a carer for mum in my home (just us) and lost her in November 2019, and then had to go into full self-isolation the next spring on my own in a 4 bed house. And in that situation mind-games happen; it's how to manage them.
It being an MP, Mayor of London, and senior policeman will be aggravating - especially given that we have had 2 MPs murdered (one Islamist motivation, one white supremacist) plus a serious injury in the last few years.
And we have had a number of people locked up for making threats.
So it needs to be cracked down on hard. He's got a short sentence (6 months, out in ~3), but it was quick - so there is a decent chance it may snap him out of it or at least the risk of a repeat make him pipe down.
I wonder what China is thinking about this growing Trump-Putin love fest?
I can't believe they are happy at all.
There is method in Trump's madness. He's the Bismarck of our era.
Deploy the Swordfish!
One of the principal joys of PB is discovering random things you never knew, and never knew you didn't know, and never knew you wanted to know.
For example, why are the gun turrets missing from the wreck...
I have a perhaps incorrect memory that the Bismark capsized then sank with the turrets falling from the descending hulk. Weirdly it righted self as it settled on the sea bottom,
This is indeed what Wikipedia says, but then raises the interesting fact that the turrets were not attached in any way. Gravity was the only thing keeping them in place
Heavy old beasts but you wonder how much vertical movement there was in really rough seas,
There used to be thing they called “Trump derangement syndrome”, turns out the people who had it were just down to Earth realists.
Indeed. I have always encouraged the “against interpretation” approach to President Trump. If he says it, he means it. Even if it is crackers.
What he probably isn’t is a fanatic. Things don’t appear to hold his interest for long and he will trade them away for the right price. Folk seem to characterise that as great negotiation - and perhaps it is, but I am sceptical.
The danger appears to be for the second Trump administration is that at the moment at least he is surrounded by what appear to be fanatics.
I daresay some of them will lose interest in being out and out fanatics and become more cynical, or be thrown under the bus for embarrassing the boss. After all even President Trump can only cope with so much crazy.
The question is more how much damage will have been done by then?
Trump tonight: Ukraine shouldn’t have started this war.
Indeed. Apparently the correct response to a threatened invasion is to surrender one’s territory. Look out Taiwan.
China has said Ukraine must be involved in peace talks to be fair to Beijing and nor have the Chinese threatened to impose new tariffs on UK and European and Canadian imports and nor have they said they might take over Canada and Greenland.
As of tonight China is less of a threat to European and Canadian security and economies than Trump's US is
It’s a strange situation. At what point does one conclude that the US under Trump has gone from not supportive to actually being a hostile state? If and when that does happen, Europe frankly has no chance. Trump or not, the USA is the hegemon. If he wants Greenland he’ll take it.
If not already there it is probably there now, Trump's US is increasingly a hostile state.
However having said that European and Canadian NATO armies combined are over a million strong excluding the USA, the UK and France have nuclear weapons.
The EU is one of the 3 big global economic powers, there is no reason they cannot push back against Trump
Yep and we need to stay strong together, including with Canada. We are stronger together than he realises.
We need to reject Trump's Ukraine deal (given what we know or the terms proposed).
We need to increase military production immediately.
We need to retaliate against any and all sanctions.
Trump is a bully. The only language he will understand is someone willing to stand up to him. Give him and his buddy Putin an inch and they'll take a mile. We are only a few weeks in of four years...
I wonder what China is thinking about this growing Trump-Putin love fest?
I can't believe they are happy at all.
There is method in Trump's madness. He's the Bismarck of our era.
Deploy the Swordfish!
One of the principal joys of PB is discovering random things you never knew, and never knew you didn't know, and never knew you wanted to know.
For example, why are the gun turrets missing from the wreck...
I have a perhaps incorrect memory that the Bismark capsized then sank with the turrets falling from the descending hulk. Weirdly it righted self as it settled on the sea bottom,
Not really weird. Same thing seen in quite a few sunken battleships. Needs deep enough water for them to right themselves in the sinking process.
I wonder what China is thinking about this growing Trump-Putin love fest?
I can't believe they are happy at all.
There is method in Trump's madness. He's the Bismarck of our era.
Deploy the Swordfish!
One of the principal joys of PB is discovering random things you never knew, and never knew you didn't know, and never knew you wanted to know.
For example, why are the gun turrets missing from the wreck...
I have a perhaps incorrect memory that the Bismark capsized then sank with the turrets falling from the descending hulk. Weirdly it righted self as it settled on the sea bottom,
This is indeed what Wikipedia says, but then raises the interesting fact that the turrets were not attached in any way. Gravity was the only thing keeping them in place
My grandfather was on the Dorsetshire during the battle. He watched as the torpedoes hit the Bismarck, described how the gun turrets sprang up then fell down, and how they picked up survivors from the water before having to depart after a u-boat alarm, leaving hundreds to drown. Said that sight stayed with him for life.
The US has really fucked it today. Accepting Russian terms in total is a capitulation. Europe needs to tool up and tell the US to go jump off a bridge and we need to protect our own borders properly. UK + France + Poland in an ExCo with associate members. The three ExCo countries need to have a minimum of 4% defence spending and associate members at 2.5%, time to show Russia what we're made of.
It’s interesting as it’s totally flipped my view on Europe. Was a euro sceptic, but absolutely need to be closer to Europe now. America are not our friends
Europe yes, but not the EU. A defence pact needs to happen outside of the EU or anywhere near it because needing unanimity of 28 countries (27 in the EU plus the UK) would be impossible and Russia would use its acolytes like Orban to block any action and manipulate election results in Eastern Bloc nations to put Putin placemen into government. The EU is most susceptible to Russian manipulation because it requires unanimity in decision making for foreign policy.
We need to bilateral and multilateral treaties outside of the scope of the EU or a defence pact to replace NATO won't work.
But your fundamental basis for this argument is that we need to control what happens on the continent of Europe. Put simply, we don't. We are blessed to be separated from the continent by 'a silver sea' that makes us independent. That goes for military as well as political entanglements. We consistently fail to take advantage of the situation that fate has given us.
We have been here before when Britain spent its blood and a fortune fighting in the wars of the Spanish succession. The same people would have been around then, demanding that it was the only patriotic option to fight, and that those against it were allowing the hated French to control the continent. It was only when we stopped that nonsense and instead invested in naval force that we became a great power. Incidentally, Europe then also sorted itself out (for a while at least).
And we know what you'd have been saying in September 1939.
It's definitely what I'd have been saying in 1914, when foolish warmongers thought a jolly war on the continent would blow the cobwebs away and toughen us up a bit. Followed by The Somme, mustard gas, and the end of Britain's remarkable and peace-promoting leadership of the world economy. And without which there would have been no Hitler.
Britain's problem was that if we'd sat the war out and Germany / Austria-Hungary had won, then the continent would have ended up dominated by a powerful enemy. If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option.
Neither France and certainly not Russia were Britain's allies prior to the outbreak of the first world war.
Well that’s one view of the Triple Entente. Not a formal alliance, for sure, but definitely on the same side. What is your point?
By the way did you know that there was no formal alliance of Britain and the USA in WW2? Oddly they get called allies armies all the time though.
It was a reply to FeersumEnjineeya who said "If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option."
Britain entered the war not out of fear of losing the trust of France and Russia (who like I say, were not formal allies, so there was no obligation), but out of fear of Germany defeating France, controlling the channel ports, and dominating Europe.
When you are actually fighting on the same side in a war in a coordinated manner, signing a formal defensive alliance is usually no longer needed to be called 'allies'.
None of the above. The UK had made a commitment to preserve the territorial integrity of Belgium so we had no choice but to do the right thing when Germany invaded
Man jailed for abusive emails to politicians ... A 39-year-old man has been jailed for sending malicious communications to a government minister, the mayor of London and a senior Met Police officer.
Jack Bennett, of Newlands Park, Seaton, Devon, pleaded guilty to four counts of sending malicious emails; one to Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips, one to Metropolitan police officer Matt Twist, and two counts to Mayor Sadiq Khan. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3rndxj705jo
"The Crown Prosecution Service said the email to Phillips was sent on 2 January, one day after Musk said the MP “deserves to be in prison” for denying requests to the Home Office for a public inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Oldham. The X owner also later called her a “rape genocide apologist”.
The prime minister suggested that a line has been crossed and that Musk’s comments had led to threats against the minister."
The case reached its conclusion very quickly, even if the chap did hold his hands up and the action took place in a magistrates' court. One of the emails was sent as recently as 2 January.
Gotta wonder whether the government would okay a Musk visit to this country.
Not seen all the details, obviously, but if there is no threat aren’t these just unpleasant opinions?
At the time Phillips was receiving threats after Musk's online abuse.
The Guardian piece has interesting background ... COVID, caring for mother after father had died, resulting isolation esp. caring for mother. Spending time online and snuffling up far right material - at the time eg Yaxley-Lennon would be putting out his well-produced videos, and there was the perpetual semi-fictional outrage feed from GBN and the rest.
And then wanting to have a go at targets, and email being the only way available. He was writing things like:
Appearing for Phillips, Hannah Cotton said the emails featured “serious racist abuse towards politicians” while the language used in the emails to Twist was “highly offensive”, with Bennett calling him a “rat willing to engage in strong-arm tactics against white English patriots”.
I can identify with the isolation ... I was a carer for mum in my home (just us) and lost her in November 2019, and then had to go into full self-isolation the next spring on my own in a 4 bed house. And in that situation mind-games happen; it's how to manage them.
It being an MP, Mayor of London, and senior policeman will be aggravating - especially given that we have had 2 MPs murdered (one Islamist motivation, one white supremacist) plus a serious injury in the last few years.
And we have had a number of people locked up for making threats.
So it needs to be cracked down on hard. He's got a short sentence (6 months, out in ~3), but it was quick - so there is a decent chance it may snap him out of it or at least the risk of a repeat make him pipe down.
I’m still not seeing threats as such though, and is prison the right place to snap him out of it? We need a line between being nastily offensive and what is criminal. As I say I do not know the details, so perhaps there are threats in there, or perhaps the volume of abuse is classed as a threat. Can politicians just block email accounts? Are they told not to?
I wonder what China is thinking about this growing Trump-Putin love fest?
I can't believe they are happy at all.
There is method in Trump's madness. He's the Bismarck of our era.
Deploy the Swordfish!
One of the principal joys of PB is discovering random things you never knew, and never knew you didn't know, and never knew you wanted to know.
For example, why are the gun turrets missing from the wreck...
I have a perhaps incorrect memory that the Bismark capsized then sank with the turrets falling from the descending hulk. Weirdly it righted self as it settled on the sea bottom,
This is indeed what Wikipedia says, but then raises the interesting fact that the turrets were not attached in any way. Gravity was the only thing keeping them in place
Heavy old beasts but you wonder how much vertical movement there was in really rough seas,
On an only slightly related note, the bottom of the Forth Bridge, where the structure meets the stone piers, is not bolted down either. There are keys that prevent the structure from lifting off, but they allow it to rotate at each pier.
Trump tonight: Ukraine shouldn’t have started this war.
is that an actual quote? I mean it wouldn't surprise me from Trump, but I can't find it
Apols, more precisely Zelensky and his government who is to blame. In the synapses firing off randomly mess of Trump mind, perhaps a scapegoat emerging.
'Today I heard "oh we weren't invited." Well you've been there for three years, you should have ended it three years- you should have never started it'
is there anyone on here (apart from neonazi troll williamglenn, obviously) still willing to defend this crap?
I've disagreed with him on some things, and been infuriated by others. But on the whole I think he's been a reasonable pope, and better than his last few predecessors.
Regardless of all that, I hope he recovers soon.
Me too. I like him a lot. Pope Benedict apparently did his unprecedented retirement so that someone could come in and decorrupt the Vatican. Francis seems a very moral Pope, though I don't agree with him about everything. Health and long life to him.
He's been the best Pope since maybe forever.
Note to self: find out the Jesuit position on AI.
I'd argue John-Paul II, Karol Wojtyła. He was conservative (though not as much as some previous such as Pius XII aiui) but did great things in bringing Eastern Europe out of communism.
Or I might argue John XXIII (Second Vatican Council).
I like Francis' manner, and presentation - not being timid or defensive (in my perception). And I generally highly admire modern Jesuits.
Heavy old beasts but you wonder how much vertical movement there was in really rough seas,
Not much. It takes a great deal of force to move a 1000 ton turret vertically, although it did sometimes happen there was enough movement to knock the turret off its bearings. The German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau both had their forward turrets disabled in heavy seas multiple times, although their turrets were fairly light as they only mounted 11-inch guns compared to the 14/15/16-inch on most battleships.
Trump tonight: Ukraine shouldn’t have started this war.
Indeed. Apparently the correct response to a threatened invasion is to surrender one’s territory. Look out Taiwan.
China has said Ukraine must be involved in peace talks to be fair to Beijing and nor have the Chinese threatened to impose new tariffs on UK and European and Canadian imports and nor have they said they might take over Canada and Greenland.
As of tonight China is less of a threat to European and Canadian security and economies than Trump's US is
Our allies Australia, Japan, and South Korea however…
To be fair even Xi is more stable than Trump and Putin
I wonder what China is thinking about this growing Trump-Putin love fest?
I can't believe they are happy at all.
There is method in Trump's madness. He's the Bismarck of our era.
Deploy the Swordfish!
One of the principal joys of PB is discovering random things you never knew, and never knew you didn't know, and never knew you wanted to know.
For example, why are the gun turrets missing from the wreck...
I have a perhaps incorrect memory that the Bismark capsized then sank with the turrets falling from the descending hulk. Weirdly it righted self as it settled on the sea bottom,
This is indeed what Wikipedia says, but then raises the interesting fact that the turrets were not attached in any way. Gravity was the only thing keeping them in place
Heavy old beasts but you wonder how much vertical movement there was in really rough seas,
On an only slightly related not, the bottom of the Forth Bridge, where the structure meets the stone piers, is not bolted down either. There are keys that prevent the structure from lifting off, but they allow it to rotate at each pier.
Are there not pillars in Wrens St Paul’s cathedral that don’t quite reach the roof, and were added by Wren as he was told to, despite him calculating correctly that they weren’t needed?
I'm not totally panicking about the US and Trump because, regardless of the damage they are doing atm, and my belief that the lead European powers need to up their game and police their own backyard, I don't think that's where most Americans are at, who are quite reasonable, share most of our values, and have a fondness for their European roots.
We just don't know how long it will last, or where we'll be when it finishes. Which is why we must act now.
And this is the point, we need to stop being beholden to the US agenda as it is no longer reliable and hasn't been for 20 years. We need to step up and that means cutting welfare spending to fund our national defence. It's time for the "sick" to go back to work.
If the sick didn’t have to spend so long on a waiting list, they could go back to work sooner.
You really think all the people on waiting lists are non-workers who want to work and can be easily cured ?
Not all, but many are. Those above retirement age on waiting lists are having a knock on effect too. Many of their carers are of working age.
Perhaps we should give priority treatment to those who are in paid employment.
It would also have the advantage of discouraging too early retirement.
Heavy old beasts but you wonder how much vertical movement there was in really rough seas,
Not much. It takes a great deal of force to move a 1000 ton turret vertically, although it did sometimes happen there was enough movement to knock the turret off its bearings. The German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau both had their forward turrets disabled in heavy seas multiple times, although their turrets were fairly light as they only mounted 11-inch guns compared to the 14/15/16-inch on most battleships.
The swing bridge in Newcastle is mounted on warship gun turret bearings
Trump seems to think it's time for elections in Ukraine.
Methinks Zelensky is not long for this world now the US has withdrawn their support for him.
What Trump hasn’t spotted, is that none of Zelensky’s likely successors take a softer line on Russia. Not that the polling really suggests he’d lose anyway.
Unless any election is swung by 40 trillion postal votes from Moscow East.
Comments
Musk tells us we will be surprised how much science has to change when they are done.
I had never thought about it until it happened to me, but many must be in that frustrated position.
You do accidentally make a good point about subsea interconnectors though - I have always been strongly against them, their vulnerability to hostile attack (not just by Russia) being just one good reason among many.
A Ugandan judge who is studying for a PhD at Oxford University and sits on UN criminal tribunals is facing charges of trafficking a young woman to be her slave.
Lydia Mugambe was appointed two years ago to the UN court that deals with residual matters from the criminal tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. She is understood to be a PhD research student at Oxford’s law faculty while on sabbatical from her main role as a high court judge in Uganda.
Mugambe, 49, is accused of taking advantage of her status in the “most egregious way” by preventing a young Ugandan woman from holding down steady employment and forcing her to work unpaid as her maid and to provide childcare.
Prosecutors have alleged that Mugambe intended from the start of her relationship with the woman to obtain “someone to make her life easier and at the least possible cost to herself”.
Mugambe is also accused of attempting to intimidate the alleged victim, who cannot be named, into dropping the case.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/ugandan-judge-trafficked-woman-to-uk-to-be-her-slave-lhnnsqv39
It would also have the advantage of discouraging too early retirement.
1. This is a waste of money, it should be spent on me/things I approve of instead.
2. I shouldn't be asked to pay more because I am genuinely hard up already and/or I already pay too much.
3. Why am I being asked for all this extra money when it could be raised from better targets (other people more deserving of being soaked and/or areas of spending that ought to be cut?)
I, for example, am prepared to cough up and think it's a worthwhile expense, but if the Government does what I suspect it will do and soaks earnings yet again, whilst leaving asset wealth and pensions untouched, then I'll be mightily pissed off with them.
So, as I said, whether the Government is prepared to raise the money in the first place, and who they take it from if they do, will tell us a lot about its character and priorities. Are they actually serious about defence or not? Who do they care about, and who are they willing to shit all over?
China unilaterally withdrew from most of the occupied/claimed areas after only a month, so the US assistance wasn't needed in the end. It was only in 1971 during the Bangladesh crisis that India formally signed a treaty with the USSR, as a counter to US support for the military regime in Pakistan (who were ruling Bangladesh at that time).
Does Musk get his babies from origami?
"If France / Russia has managed to prevail without us, then our allies would never have trusted us again and we'd have been left friendless. In the end, going to war was seen as the least worst option."
Britain entered the war not out of fear of losing the trust of France and Russia (who like I say, were not formal allies, so there was no obligation), but out of fear of Germany defeating France, controlling the channel ports, and dominating Europe.
When you are actually fighting on the same side in a war in a coordinated manner, signing a formal defensive alliance is usually no longer needed to be called 'allies'.
We are in a defining moment for our nation. I know that, whether you are rich or poor, you share the love that I have for this country.
Which is why I need to ask those of you who can to step up.
I am aware that many of you feel heavily taxed already. You are right to feel this way.
I am aware that a tax on your wealth will cause some of you to seriously consider emigrating. Before you do, I'd ask you to think of your family, your culture, your heritage.
I'd like you to consider how much you love this country and wish it well. And I'd ask you to consider the power that you have, through your wealth, to preserve the integrity and strength of our nation to meet the threats that we may face in coming years.
I'd ask you to be proud of the contribution you are making to our future, and generous in your willingness to make that contribution.
Noone listens to political speeches, so it'd make bugger all difference, but I'd enjoy hearing it.
Tough shit on you ultra right types who try to replace them
That said it wouldn't take much from Trump following through on some of his truly mad ideas to turn the US into an adversary of the UK. i.e. If the US does something nuts regarding Canada or Greenland.
Get your hands in your pockets war pigs
And the 'alarming' point is that the damage done likely outweighs the benefit of saving $6.5bn.
The UK needs to develop its own sovereign LLM.
It may be a vital source of trustworthy data.
We cannot and should leave this to the Americans and the Chinese.
#pbfreespeech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente_Cordiale
Pensioners aren't in paid employment BTW
Who do we need to "defend ourselves" against.
I find your reference to "pass the assessment" particularly offensive btw.
For example, why are the gun turrets missing from the wreck...
That said why are you asking such a fucking stupid question in the first place?
As of tonight China is less of a threat to European and Canadian security and economies than Trump's US is
The Kremlin line, basically.
https://x.com/calltoactivism/status/1891967011007213651?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
There is a difference between having a friendly understanding and a formal alliance. If you think there is no difference you must be mystified by the fuss over whether Ukraine can join NATO.
However having said that European and Canadian NATO armies combined are over a million strong excluding the USA, the UK and France have nuclear weapons.
The EU is one of the 3 big global economic powers, there is no reason they cannot push back against Trump
The Guardian piece has interesting background ... COVID, caring for mother after father had died, resulting isolation esp. caring for mother. Spending time online and snuffling up far right material - at the time eg Yaxley-Lennon would be putting out his well-produced videos, and there was the perpetual semi-fictional outrage feed from GBN and the rest.
And then wanting to have a go at targets, and email being the only way available. He was writing things like:
Appearing for Phillips, Hannah Cotton said the emails featured “serious racist abuse towards politicians” while the language used in the emails to Twist was “highly offensive”, with Bennett calling him a “rat willing to engage in strong-arm tactics against white English patriots”.
I can identify with the isolation ... I was a carer for mum in my home (just us) and lost her in November 2019, and then had to go into full self-isolation the next spring on my own in a 4 bed house. And in that situation mind-games happen; it's how to manage them.
It being an MP, Mayor of London, and senior policeman will be aggravating - especially given that we have had 2 MPs murdered (one Islamist motivation, one white supremacist) plus a serious injury in the last few years.
And we have had a number of people locked up for making threats.
So it needs to be cracked down on hard. He's got a short sentence (6 months, out in ~3), but it was quick - so there is a decent chance it may snap him out of it or at least the risk of a repeat make him pipe down.
What he probably isn’t is a fanatic. Things don’t appear to hold his interest for long and he will trade them away for the right price. Folk seem to characterise that as great negotiation - and perhaps it is, but I am sceptical.
The danger appears to be for the second Trump administration is that at the moment at least he is surrounded by what appear to be fanatics.
I daresay some of them will lose interest in being out and out fanatics and become more cynical, or be thrown under the bus for embarrassing the boss. After all even President Trump can only cope with so much crazy.
The question is more how much damage will have been done by then?
We need to reject Trump's Ukraine deal (given what we know or the terms proposed).
We need to increase military production immediately.
We need to retaliate against any and all sanctions.
Trump is a bully. The only language he will understand is someone willing to stand up to him. Give him and his buddy Putin an inch and they'll take a mile. We are only a few weeks in of four years...
Methinks Zelensky is not long for this world now the US has withdrawn their support for him.
'Today I heard "oh we weren't invited." Well you've been there for three years, you should have ended it three years- you should have never started it'
is there anyone on here (apart from neonazi troll williamglenn, obviously) still willing to defend this crap?
Mind you it's also pretty bloody clear that Trump's brain is basically fish paste now.
Or I might argue John XXIII (Second Vatican Council).
I like Francis' manner, and presentation - not being timid or defensive (in my perception). And I generally highly admire modern Jesuits.
Edit just seen it was a building in Windsor.
Unless any election is swung by 40 trillion postal votes from Moscow East.