"France and Britain are drawing up plans to create a “reassurance force” that would rely on western air power, backed by the US, to enforce any ceasefire deal in Ukraine and deter potential Russian aggression.
The plans, which western officials said were still being fleshed out, give a bigger role to western air forces than proposals previously floated by European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron that potentially involved a large number of soldiers deployed to Ukraine.
Instead they rely on a domain where western militaries have a clear advantage over Russia: their air forces. Land troops would instead be used, at least initially, to protect key Ukrainian sites, such as ports and nuclear power stations."
It's probably not kept pace with the latest developments, but it seems the right direction of travel.
Of course if we really wanted to troll Russia, European leaders could start to talk about its western provinces falling into our “sphere of influence” and propose that we discuss it with the Chinese, whose “sphere of influence” covers the rest.
An Eastern European Official has told the German Newspaper, BILD, that discussions are ongoing in regards to the withdrawal of U.S. Troops from all Countries in Europe that joined the NATO Alliance after 1990, which is reported to have been one of the Goals of recent Negotiations between Russia and the United States. This would include Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. Additionally, preparations are said to be ongoing in Italy, for the possible withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Kosovo
I hope the many Republicans who laud Ronald Reagan will speak out against this.
Reagan is a bit of an historical embarrassment these days. He is not sufficiently Trumpy.
I do try to see where the US interest is in make places less dependent on them or actively hostile to them, but I struggle to see it.
Probably the same kind of attitude that seems monetary contributions in international affairs as having zero impact, so can be abandoned as our 'interest' (that is money) is improved by not doing it.
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The reaspn is twofold. Firstly we will have to use it to some extent. If the US is abandoning Ukraine then we will have to provide either a peacekeeping force, weapons to Ukraine, and/or beef up defences on its borders should a pro-Russian regime be installed. Plus in doing that maintain our current forces if not increase them elsewhere. Quite possibly without American troops currently stationed in Eastern Europe. For example one reason Poland is reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine is it has its own border defences with Russia and Belarus and the Polish corridor to think about.
Secondly, it's about deterrence and vital defensive capabilities. The bulk of our new spending would likely be on air defence systems that can replace what the US did effectively provide as a guarantor. In general our defence is also currently integrated with the US and can't function fully without American help. That's how it's been designed as in theory it worked well for both as a way of extending American combat power while reducing the cost to us. So just to stand still and maintain our capabilities we had when NATO functioned fully we'll have to spend more. And more still if we believe the threat from Russia has increased.
Also why a peace deal favouring Russia is very much not on our interest. The potential costs far outweigh any short term benefits.
Thanks all for your answers. I remain of the view that European military spending is probably sufficient at the moment, taking into account our technological advantage, the fact Ukraine has managed to f*ck the Russians up big time, and our unwillingness to ever do an Erdogan.
I'd support a highly targeted reform of our defence spending, particularly around drones, stocks of ammo and cables, and the associated expense of that, if we accompany it with a new pro-active doctrine. That might mean sinking dodgy ships in the Baltic, RAF sorties over Ukraine, and a rotated garrison in Kyiv.
I am not sold on an arbitrary increase to 3/4% without an explanation of what it's actually for.
My guess is:
(1) British Army - we need to sustain a warfighting division in the field in the medium-long term. That's 10,000+ troops with rotations every 6 months, fully equipped and armed with artillery, tanks, light vehicles, ammo and engineers/logistics. Probably requires army back up at 110,000 men given we struggled with Telic/Herrick with just 100k. (2) Royal Navy - woefully short of escorts and men. Probably 10 x destroyers, 2 x cruisers and 16-18 frigates needed. 12 x attack subs. Full nuclear deterrent for Dreadnought of 4 x bomber subs. High availability. Fully fuelled. RFA to match. Royal Marines and landing ships on top. (3) RAF - complete Tempest/get all necessary F35 squadrons, upgrade maritime patrol aircraft, ensure hypersonic missile defences. Several addition squadrons. Chinook/Wessex helicopter fleet upgrades. Lots more cruise missiles and tactical missiles. Maybe some tactical nuclear warheads on top.
Then you need electronic warfare and cyber/hybrid warfare defences, proper funding of the security services, and special forces on top.
All of that would make us very credible in defence. But you couldn't do it all with 2.5%.
That's a good start. The issue I have with it is the old question: "What is the tactical threat?"
At the moment, drones are. So programs that were unsexy - such as Dragonfire / HELWS - suddenly become sexy and vital.
But what if, in three years time, the threat is robo-dogs firing guns?
Or in naval terms: we may be concentrating on the threat from hypersonic missiles. What if the new threat is fast torpedoes (as China has allegedly developed)?
The tech is evolving rapidly, in part because of the Ukraine war. We need a military and industry that is both specific towards threat and which can pivot quickly. Or we will have thousands of horses when we need thousands of Fords.
“The idea that he’s going to litigate his disagreements with the president in the public square…. This is not a good way to deal with President Trump”
Adds: “Of course, the Ukrainians are going to have their perspective. The way to surface that is in a private discussion with American diplomats… he’s attacking the only reason this country exists, publicly, right now. And it’s disgraceful. And it’s not something that is going to move the President of the United States. In fact, it’s going to have the opposite effect.”
When do we expect Trump to announce that any bank who continues to freeze Russian assets and/or hands over funds to the Ukrainians will be breaking the law that he’s just made and will also be frozen out of the banking system?
And their assets in the US will be seized and placed in Trust under the control of the Chair of the Kennedy Centre.
That’s the sort of thing that would see Trump quickly discover that the U.S. can’t make unilateral moves on financial services. The U.K., EU, and Japan could shut him down.
"France and Britain are drawing up plans to create a “reassurance force” that would rely on western air power, backed by the US, to enforce any ceasefire deal in Ukraine and deter potential Russian aggression.
The plans, which western officials said were still being fleshed out, give a bigger role to western air forces than proposals previously floated by European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron that potentially involved a large number of soldiers deployed to Ukraine.
Instead they rely on a domain where western militaries have a clear advantage over Russia: their air forces. Land troops would instead be used, at least initially, to protect key Ukrainian sites, such as ports and nuclear power stations."
It's probably not kept pace with the latest developments, but it seems the right direction of travel.
If it relies on the USA it is not. They can no longer be regarded as reliable allies.
I have no idea which. My wife offered, and I said, yes.
I am having an infinitely more luxurious time. We decided about 10 minutes ago that instead of getting our hire car at Lyon airport and arriving at our house around 1am, we would book a room at the airport NH hotel.
I am now therefore in the Gatwick North terminal Wetherspoons drinking a Concha y Toro Chardonnay. It’s a bit like that Sean Thomas Speccy article posted earlier. Similar vibe. But with added tutting and sighing about Trump from my wife.
I am tucking into a tin of Ambrosia Rice Pudding after surveying my covid/ukraine/zombie invasion/robot war cupboard.
Is it time to panic buy beans and toilet rolls yet?
I like the one with sultana and nutmeg. The brown tin. Might get a couple in for the end of the world.
Why has the Conservative Party remained mute on this unfolding nightmare?
Why has it not expressed 100% support for Zelenskyy and Ukraine?
(My email is bombarded daily with CCHQ crap, but nothing so far on something so existential. But maybe I’ve missed it).
For some of us, it’s now make or break time with the party.
Trying to tread an untreadable line?
Fuck that. Get behind Ukraine. Crush Farage.
I don't think the Reform bubble is imminently about to pop. The other parties are too unpopular with too many, a hard core like the Trumpism, and many of the rest will be dispirited by the abandonment of Ukraine but see it as something no one can do anything about now, and use that to buy Farage's inevitable equivocation and dodge on the subject at some point (when even some Reformites thought he'd stepped too far during the GE on Russia).
As long as Reform can remain the none of the above party it will remain inflated somewhat. Most people aren't deeply engaged with politics. They won't know Farage, Tice et al have some views they find dodgy. Just as lots of voters didn't really engage with Corbyn's problematic views on foreign policy and defence all that much.
What will arguably change that is the sharp focus on a potential Reform government or main opppsition as we reach an election. Either because they make missteps that harm themselves or voters who are horrified at the idea of them in power coalesce behind the party that looks like their opponents wherever they are.
Remember this? A Reform UK general election candidate who described Russian president Vladimir Putin as "very good" has clarified his comments. When asked about remarks he gave at a hustings event, Julian Malins said the leader was a "good Russian president" but not a good man "in the Christian sense"...
Leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, said he did not agree with the original comment, but he did not want party candidates to be told what to think.
He agreed with the comments, let's not kid ourselves - there will be any number of things that candidates or members will say that would see them kicked out of Reform if they wanted. Just recently in Wiltshire they rebuked and removed a chair of the party for spreading material they did not approve (about Afghans being settled).
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The vulnerability is being dependent on the US for logistics, command and control, air cover, and communications, etc. Such that Europe alone can’t do much for Ukraine, despite all the billions we are spending, because take the US out of the equation and it all falls apart. Ditto should Europe alone be called upon to do the peacekeeping.
Establishing operational independence from the US would be worth a bit of money and attention.
"France and Britain are drawing up plans to create a “reassurance force” that would rely on western air power, backed by the US, to enforce any ceasefire deal in Ukraine and deter potential Russian aggression.
The plans, which western officials said were still being fleshed out, give a bigger role to western air forces than proposals previously floated by European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron that potentially involved a large number of soldiers deployed to Ukraine.
Instead they rely on a domain where western militaries have a clear advantage over Russia: their air forces. Land troops would instead be used, at least initially, to protect key Ukrainian sites, such as ports and nuclear power stations."
It's probably not kept pace with the latest developments, but it seems the right direction of travel.
If it relies on the USA it is not. They can no longer be regarded as reliable allies.
Yup. We need to cut the USA out of- they cannot be trusted
I just don’t get it. Years of American power - gone. In 30 days.
Where is the opposition in the USA?
They lost. Not just in the Whitehouse but in Congress and the Senate. As long as the GOP sticks with Trump madness we have an elected dictatorship there. It is delusional to think anything else.
@Mike_Pence Mr. President, Ukraine did not “start” this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. The Road to Peace must be built on the Truth.🇺🇸🇺🇦
“Russia Invades Ukraine in Largest European Attack Since WWII”
I just don’t get it. Years of American power - gone. In 30 days.
Where is the opposition in the USA?
There isn't one, essentially. That's what it looks like from the outside anyway. Dissenting voices seem mostly too frightened or too demoralised to bother.
The only thing that might create meaningful opposition to Trump is economic recession. Although there's no guarantee that the problem of public discontent at the ballot box won't be solved by simply rigging elections.
I just don’t get it. Years of American power - gone. In 30 days.
Where is the opposition in the USA?
They are abandoning woke. Which, somewhat embarrassingly, leaves them with nothing. But they do podcasts. So that's OK. Never underestimate the ability of the left to navel-gaze. "Ooh, look: fluff!" (pulls it out and inspects it)
Why has the Conservative Party remained mute on this unfolding nightmare?
Why has it not expressed 100% support for Zelenskyy and Ukraine?
(My email is bombarded daily with CCHQ crap, but nothing so far on something so existential. But maybe I’ve missed it).
For some of us, it’s now make or break time with the party.
Trying to tread an untreadable line?
Fuck that. Get behind Ukraine. Crush Farage.
I don't think the Reform bubble is imminently about to pop. The other parties are too unpopular with too many, a hard core like the Trumpism, and many of the rest will be dispirited by the abandonment of Ukraine but see it as something no one can do anything about now, and use that to buy Farage's inevitable equivocation and dodge on the subject at some point (when even some Reformites thought he'd stepped too far during the GE on Russia).
As long as Reform can remain the none of the above party it will remain inflated somewhat. Most people aren't deeply engaged with politics. They won't know Farage, Tice et al have some views they find dodgy. Just as lots of voters didn't really engage with Corbyn's problematic views on foreign policy and defence all that much.
What will arguably change that is the sharp focus on a potential Reform government or main opppsition as we reach an election. Either because they make missteps that harm themselves or voters who are horrified at the idea of them in power coalesce behind the party that looks like their opponents wherever they are.
As Corbyn shows, however, you can avoid the deep scrutiny on your first go around.
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
Except she claims there is a fully funded plan to raise Defence spending to 2.5% - if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
Why does it matter? She’s just making a little political dig. She has committed to support Starmer on getting to 2.5% which is important
Boats already sailed on 2.5%, IMHO.
Yeah the one odd thing is didn't massively outbid him rather than state what Lab is already committed to. As it's the opposition's prerogative to do so without strictly saying how it would be paid for.
I do think the PM needs to say something, tonight, on the record. A pool clip at least.
There's not much more he can say that he hasn't already said. The time for further speeches will be after the trip to the US. Trump is likely to try to humiliate him. How he reacts to that will matter hugely
The 'special relationship' is dead, NATO is dead, the 'west' is dead.
America is no longer an ally.
We need to react accordingly - and fast.
UK and Canada should join EU
Quite the opposite.
Anyone proposing a single European army is making the same mistake as those proposing we rely on Washington.
Why the hell should we replace a single point of failure in Washington with a single point of failure in Brussels.
Yes we need to invest, but we need to invest as nations separately that can work together when willing to do so and never again be reliant upon the benevolence or malevolence of a single individual who has too much power.
Swiss cheese security works better than unified single point of failure security. What's happened in America is a big red flashing warning light on the dangers of single points of failure.
If Britain invested as heavily in defence as Poland has, and the Scandis are either doing or are likely to do, then we could create a coalition with almost the population of Russia and vastly superior economic resources. If push came to shove we could defeat them conventionally without having to fret on the support of flakier friends with stronger Putinist leanings, and a greater willingness to sell out if it means they can have their cheap gas back.
Anything resembling an EU capability would simply be derailed by the effing about of various Kremlin shills and the remaining holier-than-thou neutrals.
In a conventional war, right now, the UK, Poland, Ukraine, the Baltics and Scandinavia could defeat Russia. We’d be in Moscow by April. The only problem would be Russia’s nuclear backstop.
NATO has been very successful. The obvious approach is a new NATO minus the US (but maybe plus Panama?). Trump would see that as a win, perhaps.
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The vulnerability is being dependent on the US for logistics, command and control, air cover, and communications, etc. Such that Europe alone can’t do much for Ukraine, despite all the billions we are spending, because take the US out of the equation and it all falls apart. Ditto should Europe alone be called upon to do the peacekeeping. .
Yes, we might be able to come with a lot of money, potentially. But like when there's a natural disaster it takes quite a bit of work, knowledge, and capability (and probably time) to turn money into actual help.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
Your second paragraph is a lie. A Russian propaganda point designed to confuse debate in the west.
However, Gorbachev neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany.34 The issue was not even under discussion at NATO at the time, since the Warsaw Pact and the USSR were both still in existence. Even if the Warsaw Pact’s days were clearly numbered, there was no expectation in Western capitals in the autumn of 1990 that the USSR would collapse a year later.
2% of Lib Dems think Ukraine are mostly responsible for the war
All parties have their extremes
Going off a couple of comments I'm getting on my YouTube I must be in the 0.2% of LibDems who isn't just pro Putin but is also pro-Nazi...
You did say Musk isn't the owner of Tesla but merely "the CEO and figurehead." Which made me think he must have sold all his shares, but the internet says he is the biggest shareholder owning more than 13% if the company.
I have no idea which. My wife offered, and I said, yes.
I am having an infinitely more luxurious time. We decided about 10 minutes ago that instead of getting our hire car at Lyon airport and arriving at our house around 1am, we would book a room at the airport NH hotel.
I am now therefore in the Gatwick North terminal Wetherspoons drinking a Concha y Toro Chardonnay. It’s a bit like that Sean Thomas Speccy article posted earlier. Similar vibe. But with added tutting and sighing about Trump from my wife.
I am tucking into a tin of Ambrosia Rice Pudding after surveying my covid/ukraine/zombie invasion/robot war cupboard.
Is it time to panic buy beans and toilet rolls yet?
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The reaspn is twofold. Firstly we will have to use it to some extent. If the US is abandoning Ukraine then we will have to provide either a peacekeeping force, weapons to Ukraine, and/or beef up defences on its borders should a pro-Russian regime be installed. Plus in doing that maintain our current forces if not increase them elsewhere. Quite possibly without American troops currently stationed in Eastern Europe. For example one reason Poland is reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine is it has its own border defences with Russia and Belarus and the Polish corridor to think about.
Secondly, it's about deterrence and vital defensive capabilities. The bulk of our new spending would likely be on air defence systems that can replace what the US did effectively provide as a guarantor. In general our defence is also currently integrated with the US and can't function fully without American help. That's how it's been designed as in theory it worked well for both as a way of extending American combat power while reducing the cost to us. So just to stand still and maintain our capabilities we had when NATO functioned fully we'll have to spend more. And more still if we believe the threat from Russia has increased.
Also why a peace deal favouring Russia is very much not on our interest. The potential costs far outweigh any short term benefits.
Thanks all for your answers. I remain of the view that European military spending is probably sufficient at the moment, taking into account our technological advantage, the fact Ukraine has managed to f*ck the Russians up big time, and our unwillingness to ever do an Erdogan.
I'd support a highly targeted reform of our defence spending, particularly around drones, stocks of ammo and cables, and the associated expense of that, if we accompany it with a new pro-active doctrine. That might mean sinking dodgy ships in the Baltic, RAF sorties over Ukraine, and a rotated garrison in Kyiv.
I am not sold on an arbitrary increase to 3/4% without an explanation of what it's actually for.
My guess is:
(1) British Army - we need to sustain a warfighting division in the field in the medium-long term. That's 10,000+ troops with rotations every 6 months, fully equipped and armed with artillery, tanks, light vehicles, ammo and engineers/logistics. Probably requires army back up at 110,000 men given we struggled with Telic/Herrick with just 100k. (2) Royal Navy - woefully short of escorts and men. Probably 10 x destroyers, 2 x cruisers and 16-18 frigates needed. 12 x attack subs. Full nuclear deterrent for Dreadnought of 4 x bomber subs. High availability. Fully fuelled. RFA to match. Royal Marines and landing ships on top. (3) RAF - complete Tempest/get all necessary F35 squadrons, upgrade maritime patrol aircraft, ensure hypersonic missile defences. Several addition squadrons. Chinook/Wessex helicopter fleet upgrades. Lots more cruise missiles and tactical missiles. Maybe some tactical nuclear warheads on top.
Then you need electronic warfare and cyber/hybrid warfare defences, proper funding of the security services, and special forces on top.
All of that would make us very credible in defence. But you couldn't do it all with 2.5%.
I think you listen to the Ukrainians and the Turks as to what modern armed forces should look like. I suspect the answer is fewer big things and more drones.
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The reaspn is twofold. Firstly we will have to use it to some extent. If the US is abandoning Ukraine then we will have to provide either a peacekeeping force, weapons to Ukraine, and/or beef up defences on its borders should a pro-Russian regime be installed. Plus in doing that maintain our current forces if not increase them elsewhere. Quite possibly without American troops currently stationed in Eastern Europe. For example one reason Poland is reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine is it has its own border defences with Russia and Belarus and the Polish corridor to think about.
Secondly, it's about deterrence and vital defensive capabilities. The bulk of our new spending would likely be on air defence systems that can replace what the US did effectively provide as a guarantor. In general our defence is also currently integrated with the US and can't function fully without American help. That's how it's been designed as in theory it worked well for both as a way of extending American combat power while reducing the cost to us. So just to stand still and maintain our capabilities we had when NATO functioned fully we'll have to spend more. And more still if we believe the threat from Russia has increased.
Also why a peace deal favouring Russia is very much not on our interest. The potential costs far outweigh any short term benefits.
Thanks all for your answers. I remain of the view that European military spending is probably sufficient at the moment, taking into account our technological advantage, the fact Ukraine has managed to f*ck the Russians up big time, and our unwillingness to ever do an Erdogan.
I'd support a highly targeted reform of our defence spending, particularly around drones, stocks of ammo and cables, and the associated expense of that, if we accompany it with a new pro-active doctrine. That might mean sinking dodgy ships in the Baltic, RAF sorties over Ukraine, and a rotated garrison in Kyiv.
I am not sold on an arbitrary increase to 3/4% without an explanation of what it's actually for.
My guess is:
(1) British Army - we need to sustain a warfighting division in the field in the medium-long term. That's 10,000+ troops with rotations every 6 months, fully equipped and armed with artillery, tanks, light vehicles, ammo and engineers/logistics. Probably requires army back up at 110,000 men given we struggled with Telic/Herrick with just 100k. (2) Royal Navy - woefully short of escorts and men. Probably 10 x destroyers, 2 x cruisers and 16-18 frigates needed. 12 x attack subs. Full nuclear deterrent for Dreadnought of 4 x bomber subs. High availability. Fully fuelled. RFA to match. Royal Marines and landing ships on top. (3) RAF - complete Tempest/get all necessary F35 squadrons, upgrade maritime patrol aircraft, ensure hypersonic missile defences. Several addition squadrons. Chinook/Wessex helicopter fleet upgrades. Lots more cruise missiles and tactical missiles. Maybe some tactical nuclear warheads on top.
Then you need electronic warfare and cyber/hybrid warfare defences, proper funding of the security services, and special forces on top.
All of that would make us very credible in defence. But you couldn't do it all with 2.5%.
That's a good start. The issue I have with it is the old question: "What is the tactical threat?"
At the moment, drones are. So programs that were unsexy - such as Dragonfire / HELWS - suddenly become sexy and vital.
But what if, in three years time, the threat is robo-dogs firing guns?
Or in naval terms: we may be concentrating on the threat from hypersonic missiles. What if the new threat is fast torpedoes (as China has allegedly developed)?
The tech is evolving rapidly, in part because of the Ukraine war. We need a military and industry that is both specific towards threat and which can pivot quickly. Or we will have thousands of horses when we need thousands of Fords.
That's the classic military conundrum. And we don't know how AI will develop either.
But we do need to checkmate hypersonic missiles. It isn't an option to ignore them.
2% of Lib Dems think Ukraine are mostly responsible for the war
All parties have their extremes
Going off a couple of comments I'm getting on my YouTube I must be in the 0.2% of LibDems who isn't just pro Putin but is also pro-Nazi...
You did say Musk isn't the owner of Tesla but merely "the CEO and figurehead." Which made me think he must have sold all his shares, but the internet says he is the biggest shareholder owning more than 13% if the company.
So I'm not surprised people are calling you out.
And AIUI many of the other board members are either family members, or long-term friends.
Not people who are going to be looking after shareholders' interests. Hence the massive pay bonuses they propose for Musk...
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
Your second paragraph is a lie. A Russian propaganda point designed to confuse debate in the west.
However, Gorbachev neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany.34 The issue was not even under discussion at NATO at the time, since the Warsaw Pact and the USSR were both still in existence. Even if the Warsaw Pact’s days were clearly numbered, there was no expectation in Western capitals in the autumn of 1990 that the USSR would collapse a year later.
It was debunked a long time ago, but is being revived as people seek a reason to accept the new US-Russia order to abandon Ukraine*. Even when the same people were firmer on the war and Russia's culpability before. Even if true it would be a (partial) explanation, but not a justification, but is treated as though it is one. Farage (to criticism from Leon) called western expansion a pretext used by Putin, yet still said it was the west's fault, showing he did not really believe it was a pretext.
*(I mean, that is happening regardless, but I mean accepting it as a good or at least neutral thing by making the war not one side's fault anymore)
I do think the PM needs to say something, tonight, on the record. A pool clip at least.
There's not much more he can say that he hasn't already said. The time for further speeches will be after the trip to the US. Trump is likely to try to humiliate him. How he reacts to that will matter hugely
The 'special relationship' is dead, NATO is dead, the 'west' is dead.
America is no longer an ally.
We need to react accordingly - and fast.
UK and Canada should join EU
Quite the opposite.
Anyone proposing a single European army is making the same mistake as those proposing we rely on Washington.
Why the hell should we replace a single point of failure in Washington with a single point of failure in Brussels.
Yes we need to invest, but we need to invest as nations separately that can work together when willing to do so and never again be reliant upon the benevolence or malevolence of a single individual who has too much power.
Swiss cheese security works better than unified single point of failure security. What's happened in America is a big red flashing warning light on the dangers of single points of failure.
Depends what one means by a European army, no? Any effective force to deter Russia and police borders will require a unified command and control structure. Defence is also far for effective with forces that can work together and focus on specific strengths. We can't be in a situation as with Ukraine where support has often been slow, piecemeal and subject to domestic wranglings rather than decided in advance.
So a situation where like NATO each country contributes some of its forces towards a 'European Army' with specific strategic goals we all share would make sense, while maintaining an ability to act independently too.
Shouldn't have its command as Brussels though given non-EU countries would be involved and its would serve a broader collection of countries than the EU.
A "unified command and control" structure is precisely the disaster that should be avoided. Diversified command and control with a variety of controls where no individual controller can cause problems is what we need.
When it comes to getting support to Ukraine then rapid and piecemeal massively trumps sclerotic, slow and never delivered. Unification is a weakness not a strength.
I have no idea which. My wife offered, and I said, yes.
I am having an infinitely more luxurious time. We decided about 10 minutes ago that instead of getting our hire car at Lyon airport and arriving at our house around 1am, we would book a room at the airport NH hotel.
I am now therefore in the Gatwick North terminal Wetherspoons drinking a Concha y Toro Chardonnay. It’s a bit like that Sean Thomas Speccy article posted earlier. Similar vibe. But with added tutting and sighing about Trump from my wife.
@Mike_Pence Mr. President, Ukraine did not “start” this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. The Road to Peace must be built on the Truth.🇺🇸🇺🇦
“Russia Invades Ukraine in Largest European Attack Since WWII”
I just don’t get it. Years of American power - gone. In 30 days.
Where is the opposition in the USA?
There isn't one, essentially. That's what it looks like from the outside anyway. Dissenting voices seem mostly too frightened or too demoralised to bother.
The only thing that might create meaningful opposition to Trump is economic recession. Although there's no guarantee that the problem of public discontent at the ballot box won't be solved by simply rigging elections.
There is plenty of criticism from Democrat politicians, and more direct action with lawsuits, but the Republicans control the White House, Senate and House.
Why has the Conservative Party remained mute on this unfolding nightmare?
Why has it not expressed 100% support for Zelenskyy and Ukraine?
(My email is bombarded daily with CCHQ crap, but nothing so far on something so existential. But maybe I’ve missed it).
For some of us, it’s now make or break time with the party.
Trying to tread an untreadable line?
Fuck that. Get behind Ukraine. Crush Farage.
I don't think the Reform bubble is imminently about to pop. The other parties are too unpopular with too many, a hard core like the Trumpism, and many of the rest will be dispirited by the abandonment of Ukraine but see it as something no one can do anything about now, and use that to buy Farage's inevitable equivocation and dodge on the subject at some point (when even some Reformites thought he'd stepped too far during the GE on Russia).
As long as Reform can remain the none of the above party it will remain inflated somewhat. Most people aren't deeply engaged with politics. They won't know Farage, Tice et al have some views they find dodgy. Just as lots of voters didn't really engage with Corbyn's problematic views on foreign policy and defence all that much.
What will arguably change that is the sharp focus on a potential Reform government or main opppsition as we reach an election. Either because they make missteps that harm themselves or voters who are horrified at the idea of them in power coalesce behind the party that looks like their opponents wherever they are.
As Corbyn shows, however, you can avoid the deep scrutiny on your first go around.
True on 2017. But the issues he was dodgy on weren't in the foreground. They absolutely were later. Are we saying Trump being insane and siding with Putin won't be an issue in 2028/29?
Secondly, the Brexit dynamics were there in 2017. Such as they are here now...they may not favour Reform. Labour unpopularity could help them. But the reverse may also be true in terms of pushing waverers back into the Labour camp.
An Eastern European Official has told the German Newspaper, BILD, that discussions are ongoing in regards to the withdrawal of U.S. Troops from all Countries in Europe that joined the NATO Alliance after 1990, which is reported to have been one of the Goals of recent Negotiations between Russia and the United States. This would include Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. Additionally, preparations are said to be ongoing in Italy, for the possible withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Kosovo
I hope the many Republicans who laud Ronald Reagan will speak out against this.
Reagan is a bit of an historical embarrassment these days. He is not sufficiently Trumpy.
I do try to see where the US interest is in make places less dependent on them or actively hostile to them, but I struggle to see it.
Probably the same kind of attitude that seems monetary contributions in international affairs as having zero impact, so can be abandoned as our 'interest' (that is money) is improved by not doing it.
I think Reagan is the same as Thatcher here. The right have to praise them and say they’re emulating them, but actually they don’t really understand anything about them anymore. See Truss’s ludicrous claims that she was emulating her hero. Thatcher would have laughed the mini-budget out of the room (or at least given anyone who proposed it a thorough dressing down).
@Mike_Pence Mr. President, Ukraine did not “start” this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. The Road to Peace must be built on the Truth.🇺🇸🇺🇦
“Russia Invades Ukraine in Largest European Attack Since WWII”
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
Er, no. We didn't "push" anything. Putin's former vassals decided they wanted to be part of the west, not run by his puppets.
You've internalised the Trump attitude that Ukraine is just a passive possession to be handed back.
We're forgetting about the Ukrainians on the front lines. There must be a chance that there is a collapse given all this dreadful news, and any deal that relies on the US isn't worth anything now. They must think it's over.
We need to demonstrate that the UK stands behind them - at least during an interim period while we wait for Trump to get distracted by Panama or something. I think I've finally found a use for the Red Arrows...
@Mike_Pence Mr. President, Ukraine did not “start” this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. The Road to Peace must be built on the Truth.🇺🇸🇺🇦
“Russia Invades Ukraine in Largest European Attack Since WWII”
This is a real moment in history, isn't it? None of Europe's leaders got into politics for a time such as now but how they react to current events will shape the decades to come. I hope to God they are up to it. There is a part of me, that I am trying to suppress, which fears they are not. The bigger part, though, says they are going to surprise on the up side because they really don't have any other choice.
According to Bild, Macron and Starmer are going to Washington next week.
I have no idea which. My wife offered, and I said, yes.
I am having an infinitely more luxurious time. We decided about 10 minutes ago that instead of getting our hire car at Lyon airport and arriving at our house around 1am, we would book a room at the airport NH hotel.
I am now therefore in the Gatwick North terminal Wetherspoons drinking a Concha y Toro Chardonnay. It’s a bit like that Sean Thomas Speccy article posted earlier. Similar vibe. But with added tutting and sighing about Trump from my wife.
I am tucking into a tin of Ambrosia Rice Pudding after surveying my covid/ukraine/zombie invasion/robot war cupboard.
Is it time to panic buy beans and toilet rolls yet?
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."
An Eastern European Official has told the German Newspaper, BILD, that discussions are ongoing in regards to the withdrawal of U.S. Troops from all Countries in Europe that joined the NATO Alliance after 1990, which is reported to have been one of the Goals of recent Negotiations between Russia and the United States. This would include Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. Additionally, preparations are said to be ongoing in Italy, for the possible withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Kosovo
I hope the many Republicans who laud Ronald Reagan will speak out against this.
Reagan is a bit of an historical embarrassment these days. He is not sufficiently Trumpy.
I do try to see where the US interest is in make places less dependent on them or actively hostile to them, but I struggle to see it.
Probably the same kind of attitude that seems monetary contributions in international affairs as having zero impact, so can be abandoned as our 'interest' (that is money) is improved by not doing it.
I think Reagan is the same as Thatcher here. The right have to praise them and say they’re emulating them, but actually they don’t really understand anything about them anymore. See Truss’s ludicrous claims that she was emulating her hero. Thatcher would have laughed the mini-budget out of the room (or at least given anyone who proposed it a thorough dressing down).
'The right' as a political term has wandered out of control and become roughly equivalent to 'intolerant'. In the past it probably meant small state.
I have no idea which. My wife offered, and I said, yes.
I am having an infinitely more luxurious time. We decided about 10 minutes ago that instead of getting our hire car at Lyon airport and arriving at our house around 1am, we would book a room at the airport NH hotel.
I am now therefore in the Gatwick North terminal Wetherspoons drinking a Concha y Toro Chardonnay. It’s a bit like that Sean Thomas Speccy article posted earlier. Similar vibe. But with added tutting and sighing about Trump from my wife.
I am tucking into a tin of Ambrosia Rice Pudding after surveying my covid/ukraine/zombie invasion/robot war cupboard.
Is it time to panic buy beans and toilet rolls yet?
I might need to stock up on balsamic glaze.
Barbecued rat is simply unbearable without a decent glaze.
I shall put on my shopping list, alongside the shaved parmesan. I don't think good brie keeps well, but on the other hand it may not need to, what with the speed of developments.
An Eastern European Official has told the German Newspaper, BILD, that discussions are ongoing in regards to the withdrawal of U.S. Troops from all Countries in Europe that joined the NATO Alliance after 1990, which is reported to have been one of the Goals of recent Negotiations between Russia and the United States. This would include Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. Additionally, preparations are said to be ongoing in Italy, for the possible withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Kosovo
I hope the many Republicans who laud Ronald Reagan will speak out against this.
Reagan is a bit of an historical embarrassment these days. He is not sufficiently Trumpy.
I do try to see where the US interest is in make places less dependent on them or actively hostile to them, but I struggle to see it.
Probably the same kind of attitude that seems monetary contributions in international affairs as having zero impact, so can be abandoned as our 'interest' (that is money) is improved by not doing it.
I think Reagan is the same as Thatcher here. The right have to praise them and say they’re emulating them, but actually they don’t really understand anything about them anymore. See Truss’s ludicrous claims that she was emulating her hero. Thatcher would have laughed the mini-budget out of the room (or at least given anyone who proposed it a thorough dressing down).
Mrs J and I have very different backgrounds, and rather different politics. Yet we generally agree on many things, particularly at the macro level.
But one thing we don't agree on is Reagan. I see him as a flawed hero; she sees him as an utter villain. I understand where she's coming from, but I weigh the events differently.
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The reaspn is twofold. Firstly we will have to use it to some extent. If the US is abandoning Ukraine then we will have to provide either a peacekeeping force, weapons to Ukraine, and/or beef up defences on its borders should a pro-Russian regime be installed. Plus in doing that maintain our current forces if not increase them elsewhere. Quite possibly without American troops currently stationed in Eastern Europe. For example one reason Poland is reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine is it has its own border defences with Russia and Belarus and the Polish corridor to think about.
Secondly, it's about deterrence and vital defensive capabilities. The bulk of our new spending would likely be on air defence systems that can replace what the US did effectively provide as a guarantor. In general our defence is also currently integrated with the US and can't function fully without American help. That's how it's been designed as in theory it worked well for both as a way of extending American combat power while reducing the cost to us. So just to stand still and maintain our capabilities we had when NATO functioned fully we'll have to spend more. And more still if we believe the threat from Russia has increased.
Also why a peace deal favouring Russia is very much not on our interest. The potential costs far outweigh any short term benefits.
Thanks all for your answers. I remain of the view that European military spending is probably sufficient at the moment, taking into account our technological advantage, the fact Ukraine has managed to f*ck the Russians up big time, and our unwillingness to ever do an Erdogan.
I'd support a highly targeted reform of our defence spending, particularly around drones, stocks of ammo and cables, and the associated expense of that, if we accompany it with a new pro-active doctrine. That might mean sinking dodgy ships in the Baltic, RAF sorties over Ukraine, and a rotated garrison in Kyiv.
I am not sold on an arbitrary increase to 3/4% without an explanation of what it's actually for.
Increase it to 3% tomorrow, give the increase directly buying or making munitions for Ukraine. Work out an efficient long-term use it later.
The key thing we need to ensure we have is the means of production of vast numbers of drones and ammunition.
We don't need those going into storage, going to the frontline works, it helps Ukraine but it also helps our domestic security in ensuring we have that throughput.
What we need is a declaration this week of a large commitment by the major European powers of resources sufficient for Ukraine to carry on this war of self defence without US assistance if it comes to it. In short, to remove Trump's whip hand over Ukraine. If we allow him to use that whip hand to bully Ukraine into submission we will not only be profoundly ashamed of ourselves, we will have given up our future security. Carpe diem.
An Eastern European Official has told the German Newspaper, BILD, that discussions are ongoing in regards to the withdrawal of U.S. Troops from all Countries in Europe that joined the NATO Alliance after 1990, which is reported to have been one of the Goals of recent Negotiations between Russia and the United States. This would include Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. Additionally, preparations are said to be ongoing in Italy, for the possible withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Kosovo
I hope the many Republicans who laud Ronald Reagan will speak out against this.
Reagan is a bit of an historical embarrassment these days. He is not sufficiently Trumpy.
I do try to see where the US interest is in make places less dependent on them or actively hostile to them, but I struggle to see it.
Probably the same kind of attitude that seems monetary contributions in international affairs as having zero impact, so can be abandoned as our 'interest' (that is money) is improved by not doing it.
I think Reagan is the same as Thatcher here. The right have to praise them and say they’re emulating them, but actually they don’t really understand anything about them anymore. See Truss’s ludicrous claims that she was emulating her hero. Thatcher would have laughed the mini-budget out of the room (or at least given anyone who proposed it a thorough dressing down).
Mrs J and I have very different backgrounds, and rather different politics. Yet we generally agree on many things, particularly at the macro level.
But one thing we don't agree on is Reagan. I see him as a flawed hero; she sees him as an utter villain. I understand where she's coming from, but I weigh the events differently.
Why does she see him as a villain? The usual left-wing arguments or something else?
While in the more important fixture Salah has already scored, but Rashford is looking rejuvenated and a real threat playing for a club that has players that are trying to play.
Edit and damn just after I wrote that they equalised.
An Eastern European Official has told the German Newspaper, BILD, that discussions are ongoing in regards to the withdrawal of U.S. Troops from all Countries in Europe that joined the NATO Alliance after 1990, which is reported to have been one of the Goals of recent Negotiations between Russia and the United States. This would include Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. Additionally, preparations are said to be ongoing in Italy, for the possible withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Kosovo
I hope the many Republicans who laud Ronald Reagan will speak out against this.
Reagan is a bit of an historical embarrassment these days. He is not sufficiently Trumpy.
I do try to see where the US interest is in make places less dependent on them or actively hostile to them, but I struggle to see it.
Probably the same kind of attitude that seems monetary contributions in international affairs as having zero impact, so can be abandoned as our 'interest' (that is money) is improved by not doing it.
I think Reagan is the same as Thatcher here. The right have to praise them and say they’re emulating them, but actually they don’t really understand anything about them anymore. See Truss’s ludicrous claims that she was emulating her hero. Thatcher would have laughed the mini-budget out of the room (or at least given anyone who proposed it a thorough dressing down).
Mrs J and I have very different backgrounds, and rather different politics. Yet we generally agree on many things, particularly at the macro level.
But one thing we don't agree on is Reagan. I see him as a flawed hero; she sees him as an utter villain. I understand where she's coming from, but I weigh the events differently.
I mean the additional question is what is the nature of their need for that number of troops repatriated into the US?
I have no idea which. My wife offered, and I said, yes.
I am having an infinitely more luxurious time. We decided about 10 minutes ago that instead of getting our hire car at Lyon airport and arriving at our house around 1am, we would book a room at the airport NH hotel.
I am now therefore in the Gatwick North terminal Wetherspoons drinking a Concha y Toro Chardonnay. It’s a bit like that Sean Thomas Speccy article posted earlier. Similar vibe. But with added tutting and sighing about Trump from my wife.
I am tucking into a tin of Ambrosia Rice Pudding after surveying my covid/ukraine/zombie invasion/robot war cupboard.
Is it time to panic buy beans and toilet rolls yet?
I might need to stock up on balsamic glaze.
Barbecued rat is simply unbearable without a decent glaze.
An Eastern European Official has told the German Newspaper, BILD, that discussions are ongoing in regards to the withdrawal of U.S. Troops from all Countries in Europe that joined the NATO Alliance after 1990, which is reported to have been one of the Goals of recent Negotiations between Russia and the United States. This would include Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. Additionally, preparations are said to be ongoing in Italy, for the possible withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Kosovo
I hope the many Republicans who laud Ronald Reagan will speak out against this.
Reagan is a bit of an historical embarrassment these days. He is not sufficiently Trumpy.
I do try to see where the US interest is in make places less dependent on them or actively hostile to them, but I struggle to see it.
Probably the same kind of attitude that seems monetary contributions in international affairs as having zero impact, so can be abandoned as our 'interest' (that is money) is improved by not doing it.
I think Reagan is the same as Thatcher here. The right have to praise them and say they’re emulating them, but actually they don’t really understand anything about them anymore. See Truss’s ludicrous claims that she was emulating her hero. Thatcher would have laughed the mini-budget out of the room (or at least given anyone who proposed it a thorough dressing down).
Imaginary Thatcher has a lot more fans, I am sure.
This is a real moment in history, isn't it? None of Europe's leaders got into politics for a time such as now but how they react to current events will shape the decades to come. I hope to God they are up to it. There is a part of me, that I am trying to suppress, which fears they are not. The bigger part, though, says they are going to surprise on the up side because they really don't have any other choice.
According to Bild, Macron and Starmer are going to Washington next week.
And Trump will refuse to meet them
More likely he’ll probably just meet them and publicly humiliate them at this point.
I have no idea which. My wife offered, and I said, yes.
I am having an infinitely more luxurious time. We decided about 10 minutes ago that instead of getting our hire car at Lyon airport and arriving at our house around 1am, we would book a room at the airport NH hotel.
I am now therefore in the Gatwick North terminal Wetherspoons drinking a Concha y Toro Chardonnay. It’s a bit like that Sean Thomas Speccy article posted earlier. Similar vibe. But with added tutting and sighing about Trump from my wife.
I am tucking into a tin of Ambrosia Rice Pudding after surveying my covid/ukraine/zombie invasion/robot war cupboard.
Is it time to panic buy beans and toilet rolls yet?
I might need to stock up on balsamic glaze.
Barbecued rat is simply unbearable without a decent glaze.
Is it vegan??/
I have plenty of tinned beans and hard tack for the vegans, or the truly desperate.
I have no idea which. My wife offered, and I said, yes.
I am having an infinitely more luxurious time. We decided about 10 minutes ago that instead of getting our hire car at Lyon airport and arriving at our house around 1am, we would book a room at the airport NH hotel. won’t need I am now therefore in the Gatwick North terminal Wetherspoons drinking a Concha y Toro Chardonnay. It’s a bit like that Sean Thomas Speccy article posted earlier. Similar vibe. But with added tutting and sighing about Trump from my wife.
I am tucking into a tin of Ambrosia Rice Pudding after surveying my covid/ukraine/zombie invasion/robot war cupboard.
Is it time to panic buy beans and toilet rolls yet?
If you buy fewer beans you won’t need as many toilet rolls.
I have no idea which. My wife offered, and I said, yes.
I am having an infinitely more luxurious time. We decided about 10 minutes ago that instead of getting our hire car at Lyon airport and arriving at our house around 1am, we would book a room at the airport NH hotel.
I am now therefore in the Gatwick North terminal Wetherspoons drinking a Concha y Toro Chardonnay. It’s a bit like that Sean Thomas Speccy article posted earlier. Similar vibe. But with added tutting and sighing about Trump from my wife.
I am tucking into a tin of Ambrosia Rice Pudding after surveying my covid/ukraine/zombie invasion/robot war cupboard.
Is it time to panic buy beans and toilet rolls yet?
I might need to stock up on balsamic glaze.
Barbecued rat is simply unbearable without a decent glaze.
Is it vegan??/
I have plenty of tinned beans and hard tack for the vegans, or the truly desperate.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
Er, no. We didn't "push" anything. Putin's former vassals decided they wanted to be part of the west, not run by his puppets.
You've internalised the Trump attitude that Ukraine is just a passive possession to be handed back.
He didn't used to. People searching for a reason, scrabbling around an old favourite that hoary old leftists and the american right have been clinging to for a long time that just won't die.
I have no idea which. My wife offered, and I said, yes.
I am having an infinitely more luxurious time. We decided about 10 minutes ago that instead of getting our hire car at Lyon airport and arriving at our house around 1am, we would book a room at the airport NH hotel.
I am now therefore in the Gatwick North terminal Wetherspoons drinking a Concha y Toro Chardonnay. It’s a bit like that Sean Thomas Speccy article posted earlier. Similar vibe. But with added tutting and sighing about Trump from my wife.
I am tucking into a tin of Ambrosia Rice Pudding after surveying my covid/ukraine/zombie invasion/robot war cupboard.
Is it time to panic buy beans and toilet rolls yet?
I might need to stock up on balsamic glaze.
Barbecued rat is simply unbearable without a decent glaze.
Is it vegan??/
I have plenty of tinned beans and hard tack for the vegans, or the truly desperate.
Palpatine was the calculating deformed leader who sidelined the Senate using trade wars as a pretext. Vader was the damaged enforcer with no genitals who abandoned everybody who loved him to impose Palpatine's will upon civilisation. SO OBVIOUSLY NO ANALOGY THERE THEN.
Trump as Head of State, and Musk as Head of Government. Things Mr Windsor and Mr Starmer.
Translated, Musk is in control of the White House and Susie Wiles is marginalised.
There's a lot of chaos in the head of the beast.
What we need is for a Judge to find Elon is contempt of court and whack him in Prison for 90 days, incommunicado. But then those around him are no better. If Trump and Musk go, they get JD Vance.
That asks a question for our PBers familiar with the US Constitution - can an election be called before the next due date?
Palpatine was the calculating deformed leader who sidelined the Senate using trade wars as a pretext. Vader was the damaged enforcer with no genitals who abandoned everybody who loved him to impose Palpatine's will upon civilisation. SO OBVIOUSLY NO ANALOGY THERE THEN.
"France and Britain are drawing up plans to create a “reassurance force” that would rely on western air power, backed by the US, to enforce any ceasefire deal in Ukraine and deter potential Russian aggression.
The plans, which western officials said were still being fleshed out, give a bigger role to western air forces than proposals previously floated by European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron that potentially involved a large number of soldiers deployed to Ukraine.
Instead they rely on a domain where western militaries have a clear advantage over Russia: their air forces. Land troops would instead be used, at least initially, to protect key Ukrainian sites, such as ports and nuclear power stations."
It's probably not kept pace with the latest developments, but it seems the right direction of travel.
If it relies on the USA it is not. They can no longer be regarded as reliable allies.
How long before Trump redirects European orders for F-35's to India?
"France and Britain are drawing up plans to create a “reassurance force” that would rely on western air power, backed by the US, to enforce any ceasefire deal in Ukraine and deter potential Russian aggression.
The plans, which western officials said were still being fleshed out, give a bigger role to western air forces than proposals previously floated by European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron that potentially involved a large number of soldiers deployed to Ukraine.
Instead they rely on a domain where western militaries have a clear advantage over Russia: their air forces. Land troops would instead be used, at least initially, to protect key Ukrainian sites, such as ports and nuclear power stations."
It's probably not kept pace with the latest developments, but it seems the right direction of travel.
If it relies on the USA it is not. They can no longer be regarded as reliable allies.
How long before Trump redirects European orders for F-35's to India?
Trump as Head of State, and Musk as Head of Government. Things Mr Windsor and Mr Starmer.
Translated, Musk is in control of the White House and Susie Wiles is marginalised.
There's a lot of chaos in the head of the beast.
What we need is for a Judge to find Elon is contempt of court and whack him in Prison for 90 days, incommunicado. But then those around him are no better. If Trump and Musk go, they get JD Vance.
That asks a question for our PBers familiar with the US Constitution - can an election be called before the next due date?
Elections aren't called in America. They happen on a set schedule.
An Eastern European Official has told the German Newspaper, BILD, that discussions are ongoing in regards to the withdrawal of U.S. Troops from all Countries in Europe that joined the NATO Alliance after 1990, which is reported to have been one of the Goals of recent Negotiations between Russia and the United States. This would include Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. Additionally, preparations are said to be ongoing in Italy, for the possible withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Kosovo
I hope the many Republicans who laud Ronald Reagan will speak out against this.
Reagan is a bit of an historical embarrassment these days. He is not sufficiently Trumpy.
I do try to see where the US interest is in make places less dependent on them or actively hostile to them, but I struggle to see it.
Probably the same kind of attitude that seems monetary contributions in international affairs as having zero impact, so can be abandoned as our 'interest' (that is money) is improved by not doing it.
I think Reagan is the same as Thatcher here. The right have to praise them and say they’re emulating them, but actually they don’t really understand anything about them anymore. See Truss’s ludicrous claims that she was emulating her hero. Thatcher would have laughed the mini-budget out of the room (or at least given anyone who proposed it a thorough dressing down).
Mrs J and I have very different backgrounds, and rather different politics. Yet we generally agree on many things, particularly at the macro level.
But one thing we don't agree on is Reagan. I see him as a flawed hero; she sees him as an utter villain. I understand where she's coming from, but I weigh the events differently.
Why does she see him as a villain? The usual left-wing arguments or something else?
A question I like for once!
That's probably up to her to say; but my view is that it's very much her perspective on Reagan, growing up in a foreign country at the time. As such, I think her perspective are not quite the usual UK left-wing arguments.
I think even Reagan's fans will say he was not perfect. But I think he, on balance, was better than not.
Trump as Head of State, and Musk as Head of Government. Things Mr Windsor and Mr Starmer.
Translated, Musk is in control of the White House and Susie Wiles is marginalised.
There's a lot of chaos in the head of the beast.
What we need is for a Judge to find Elon is contempt of court and whack him in Prison for 90 days, incommunicado. But then those around him are no better. If Trump and Musk go, they get JD Vance.
That asks a question for our PBers familiar with the US Constitution - can an election be called before the next due date?
I would suggest not. I think the dates are laid down in the constitution.
@Mike_Pence Mr. President, Ukraine did not “start” this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. The Road to Peace must be built on the Truth.🇺🇸🇺🇦
“Russia Invades Ukraine in Largest European Attack Since WWII”
Trump as Head of State, and Musk as Head of Government. Things Mr Windsor and Mr Starmer.
Translated, Musk is in control of the White House and Susie Wiles is marginalised.
There's a lot of chaos in the head of the beast.
What we need is for a Judge to find Elon is contempt of court and whack him in Prison for 90 days, incommunicado. But then those around him are no better. If Trump and Musk go, they get JD Vance.
That asks a question for our PBers familiar with the US Constitution - can an election be called before the next due date?
Elections aren't called in America. They happen on a set schedule.
Trump as Head of State, and Musk as Head of Government. Things Mr Windsor and Mr Starmer.
Translated, Musk is in control of the White House and Susie Wiles is marginalised.
There's a lot of chaos in the head of the beast.
What we need is for a Judge to find Elon is contempt of court and whack him in Prison for 90 days, incommunicado. But then those around him are no better. If Trump and Musk go, they get JD Vance.
That asks a question for our PBers familiar with the US Constitution - can an election be called before the next due date?
Elections aren't called in America. They happen on a set schedule.
They USED to happen on a set schedule?
They continue to happen on a set schedule.
Whether they'll continue to mean anything or be free and fair is yet to be determined.
An Eastern European Official has told the German Newspaper, BILD, that discussions are ongoing in regards to the withdrawal of U.S. Troops from all Countries in Europe that joined the NATO Alliance after 1990, which is reported to have been one of the Goals of recent Negotiations between Russia and the United States. This would include Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. Additionally, preparations are said to be ongoing in Italy, for the possible withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Kosovo
I hope the many Republicans who laud Ronald Reagan will speak out against this.
Reagan is a bit of an historical embarrassment these days. He is not sufficiently Trumpy.
I do try to see where the US interest is in make places less dependent on them or actively hostile to them, but I struggle to see it.
Probably the same kind of attitude that seems monetary contributions in international affairs as having zero impact, so can be abandoned as our 'interest' (that is money) is improved by not doing it.
I think Reagan is the same as Thatcher here. The right have to praise them and say they’re emulating them, but actually they don’t really understand anything about them anymore. See Truss’s ludicrous claims that she was emulating her hero. Thatcher would have laughed the mini-budget out of the room (or at least given anyone who proposed it a thorough dressing down).
Mrs J and I have very different backgrounds, and rather different politics. Yet we generally agree on many things, particularly at the macro level.
But one thing we don't agree on is Reagan. I see him as a flawed hero; she sees him as an utter villain. I understand where she's coming from, but I weigh the events differently.
“Mr Gorbachev. Tear down this wall.”
That was the defining moment in his life. All else fades into insignificance
This is a real moment in history, isn't it? None of Europe's leaders got into politics for a time such as now but how they react to current events will shape the decades to come. I hope to God they are up to it. There is a part of me, that I am trying to suppress, which fears they are not. The bigger part, though, says they are going to surprise on the up side because they really don't have any other choice.
According to Bild, Macron and Starmer are going to Washington next week.
And Trump will refuse to meet them
More likely he’ll probably just meet them and publicly humiliate them at this point.
More humiliating to have them turn up and cool their heels because he’s shagging a hooker or something
Trump as Head of State, and Musk as Head of Government. Things Mr Windsor and Mr Starmer.
Translated, Musk is in control of the White House and Susie Wiles is marginalised.
There's a lot of chaos in the head of the beast.
What we need is for a Judge to find Elon is contempt of court and whack him in Prison for 90 days, incommunicado. But then those around him are no better. If Trump and Musk go, they get JD Vance.
That asks a question for our PBers familiar with the US Constitution - can an election be called before the next due date?
Elections aren't called in America. They happen on a set schedule.
They USED to happen on a set schedule?
They continue to happen on a set schedule.
Whether they'll continue to mean anything or be free and fair is yet to be determined.
2% of Lib Dems think Ukraine are mostly responsible for the war
All parties have their extremes
Going off a couple of comments I'm getting on my YouTube I must be in the 0.2% of LibDems who isn't just pro Putin but is also pro-Nazi...
You did say Musk isn't the owner of Tesla but merely "the CEO and figurehead." Which made me think he must have sold all his shares, but the internet says he is the biggest shareholder owning more than 13% if the company.
So I'm not surprised people are calling you out.
Huh? Most CEOs are shareholders. Why did you think CEO = no shares? He owns 13%. Which means he doesn’t own 87%. As I said, he can be ousted by the board and ousted by the shareholders.
He makes out like it’s his personal fiefdom. It isn’t.
Trump as Head of State, and Musk as Head of Government. Things Mr Windsor and Mr Starmer.
Translated, Musk is in control of the White House and Susie Wiles is marginalised.
There's a lot of chaos in the head of the beast.
What we need is for a Judge to find Elon is contempt of court and whack him in Prison for 90 days, incommunicado. But then those around him are no better. If Trump and Musk go, they get JD Vance.
That asks a question for our PBers familiar with the US Constitution - can an election be called before the next due date?
I would suggest not. I think the dates are laid down in the constitution.
Yes, even in wartime. An election was even held in 1864 in the middle of the American Civil War, though not all states participated.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
Er, no. We didn't "push" anything. Putin's former vassals decided they wanted to be part of the west, not run by his puppets.
You've internalised the Trump attitude that Ukraine is just a passive possession to be handed back.
I'm sorry but this simply isn’t true. Corrupt oligarch Victor Yanukovich may have been, but he was the legitimately elected Ukrainian President at the time of his ouster; that is not disputed.
If 'we' includes the USA, we absolutely "pushed" the Maidan protests, and subsequently took control over the politics of Ukraine to the extent that there's a tape of Victoria Nuland the US Secretary of State choosing who is going to lead Ukraine and saying "Fuck the EU" because they want a say.
Of course, the USA's role in Ukraine is also completely forgotten in Trump’s revisionist account.
"France and Britain are drawing up plans to create a “reassurance force” that would rely on western air power, backed by the US, to enforce any ceasefire deal in Ukraine and deter potential Russian aggression.
The plans, which western officials said were still being fleshed out, give a bigger role to western air forces than proposals previously floated by European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron that potentially involved a large number of soldiers deployed to Ukraine.
Instead they rely on a domain where western militaries have a clear advantage over Russia: their air forces. Land troops would instead be used, at least initially, to protect key Ukrainian sites, such as ports and nuclear power stations."
It's probably not kept pace with the latest developments, but it seems the right direction of travel.
The mood music from team Trump suggests that any reliance on US backing is ... just not reliable.
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The reaspn is twofold. Firstly we will have to use it to some extent. If the US is abandoning Ukraine then we will have to provide either a peacekeeping force, weapons to Ukraine, and/or beef up defences on its borders should a pro-Russian regime be installed. Plus in doing that maintain our current forces if not increase them elsewhere. Quite possibly without American troops currently stationed in Eastern Europe. For example one reason Poland is reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine is it has its own border defences with Russia and Belarus and the Polish corridor to think about.
Secondly, it's about deterrence and vital defensive capabilities. The bulk of our new spending would likely be on air defence systems that can replace what the US did effectively provide as a guarantor. In general our defence is also currently integrated with the US and can't function fully without American help. That's how it's been designed as in theory it worked well for both as a way of extending American combat power while reducing the cost to us. So just to stand still and maintain our capabilities we had when NATO functioned fully we'll have to spend more. And more still if we believe the threat from Russia has increased.
Also why a peace deal favouring Russia is very much not on our interest. The potential costs far outweigh any short term benefits.
Thanks all for your answers. I remain of the view that European military spending is probably sufficient at the moment, taking into account our technological advantage, the fact Ukraine has managed to f*ck the Russians up big time, and our unwillingness to ever do an Erdogan.
I'd support a highly targeted reform of our defence spending, particularly around drones, stocks of ammo and cables, and the associated expense of that, if we accompany it with a new pro-active doctrine. That might mean sinking dodgy ships in the Baltic, RAF sorties over Ukraine, and a rotated garrison in Kyiv.
I am not sold on an arbitrary increase to 3/4% without an explanation of what it's actually for.
My guess is:
(1) British Army - we need to sustain a warfighting division in the field in the medium-long term. That's 10,000+ troops with rotations every 6 months, fully equipped and armed with artillery, tanks, light vehicles, ammo and engineers/logistics. Probably requires army back up at 110,000 men given we struggled with Telic/Herrick with just 100k. (2) Royal Navy - woefully short of escorts and men. Probably 10 x destroyers, 2 x cruisers and 16-18 frigates needed. 12 x attack subs. Full nuclear deterrent for Dreadnought of 4 x bomber subs. High availability. Fully fuelled. RFA to match. Royal Marines and landing ships on top. (3) RAF - complete Tempest/get all necessary F35 squadrons, upgrade maritime patrol aircraft, ensure hypersonic missile defences. Several addition squadrons. Chinook/Wessex helicopter fleet upgrades. Lots more cruise missiles and tactical missiles. Maybe some tactical nuclear warheads on top.
Then you need electronic warfare and cyber/hybrid warfare defences, proper funding of the security services, and special forces on top.
All of that would make us very credible in defence. But you couldn't do it all with 2.5%.
There's some stuff there, but I think you are perhaps off on a few points. I've not commented on longer term. I'd call it that we will be going straight to 2.5% to 2.7%, but it will be lead by capabilities needed, not driven by a number. But we are all speculating.
- Not extra F35s imo, though it would make sense to proceed with the 10 or so due in 2025. But the USA can turn those off aiui. Eurofighters, for which the production lines are still running. - At this point imo priority has to be on things that are doable in a very few years. We have 8 frigates building at present, so some speed up should be possible. - Our ships are traditionally lightly armed. There are currently some upgrades rolling through, but we can do more. - There exist far more heavily armed versions of eg River Class (eg Thai Navy). - Wind up existing production. Is the new ammunition factory at Washington running 2, 3 or 4 shifts? I'd add in reconsidering our foreswearing of types of munition such as cluster shells. - Gearing up of reserves, and recently-left army soldiers who still have return-on-request obligations. - Marginal extra quantities on top of existing orders eg armoured vehicles. - But all this needs personnel, so that brings things like our heavily tied down pilot training system in question, and RN recruitment. - A number of things are going to need emergency measures declared to bring suppliers into line.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
Er, no. We didn't "push" anything. Putin's former vassals decided they wanted to be part of the west, not run by his puppets.
You've internalised the Trump attitude that Ukraine is just a passive possession to be handed back.
I'm sorry but this simply isn’t true. Corrupt oligarch Victor Yanukovich may have been, but he was the legitimately elected Ukrainian President at the time of his ouster; that is not disputed.
If 'we' includes the USA, we absolutely "pushed" the Maidan protests, and subsequently took control over the politics of Ukraine to the extent that there's a tape of Victoria Nuland the US Secretary of State choosing who is going to lead Ukraine and saying "Fuck the EU" because they want a say.
Of course, the USA's role in Ukraine is also completely forgotten in Trump’s revisionist account.
Yanukovich was President, but was ousted by a vote in Parliament that called for new elections, so was constitutional.
Trump as Head of State, and Musk as Head of Government. Things Mr Windsor and Mr Starmer.
Translated, Musk is in control of the White House and Susie Wiles is marginalised.
There's a lot of chaos in the head of the beast.
What we need is for a Judge to find Elon is contempt of court and whack him in Prison for 90 days, incommunicado. But then those around him are no better. If Trump and Musk go, they get JD Vance.
That asks a question for our PBers familiar with the US Constitution - can an election be called before the next due date?
Elections aren't called in America. They happen on a set schedule.
They USED to happen on a set schedule?
They continue to happen on a set schedule.
Whether they'll continue to mean anything or be free and fair is yet to be determined.
Talking of which... yerwot?
The White House Deputy Chief of Staff is posting images of Donald Trump in a crown and robe after Trump described himself as a king.
Trump as Head of State, and Musk as Head of Government. Things Mr Windsor and Mr Starmer.
Translated, Musk is in control of the White House and Susie Wiles is marginalised.
There's a lot of chaos in the head of the beast.
What we need is for a Judge to find Elon is contempt of court and whack him in Prison for 90 days, incommunicado. But then those around him are no better. If Trump and Musk go, they get JD Vance.
That asks a question for our PBers familiar with the US Constitution - can an election be called before the next due date?
I would suggest not. I think the dates are laid down in the constitution.
Yes, even in wartime. An election was even held in 1864 in the middle of the American Civil War, though not all states participated.
A disastrous election as it saw Andrew Johnson elected as Vice President as a token to the War Democrats and then he of course soon became POTUS after Lincoln was assassinated and he was a terrible, terrible POTUS who did much to reverse the good that had been done in the Civil War.
I do think the PM needs to say something, tonight, on the record. A pool clip at least.
There's not much more he can say that he hasn't already said. The time for further speeches will be after the trip to the US. Trump is likely to try to humiliate him. How he reacts to that will matter hugely
The 'special relationship' is dead, NATO is dead, the 'west' is dead.
America is no longer an ally.
We need to react accordingly - and fast.
UK and Canada should join EU
Quite the opposite.
Anyone proposing a single European army is making the same mistake as those proposing we rely on Washington.
Why the hell should we replace a single point of failure in Washington with a single point of failure in Brussels.
Yes we need to invest, but we need to invest as nations separately that can work together when willing to do so and never again be reliant upon the benevolence or malevolence of a single individual who has too much power.
Swiss cheese security works better than unified single point of failure security. What's happened in America is a big red flashing warning light on the dangers of single points of failure.
Depends what one means by a European army, no? Any effective force to deter Russia and police borders will require a unified command and control structure. Defence is also far for effective with forces that can work together and focus on specific strengths. We can't be in a situation as with Ukraine where support has often been slow, piecemeal and subject to domestic wranglings rather than decided in advance.
So a situation where like NATO each country contributes some of its forces towards a 'European Army' with specific strategic goals we all share would make sense, while maintaining an ability to act independently too.
Shouldn't have its command as Brussels though given non-EU countries would be involved and its would serve a broader collection of countries than the EU.
Joint command can be practised - and is. See the exercises in the Baltic/North Atlantic that the U.K. has participated in (complete with carriers)
It seems clear, to me, that what various European nations will do depends on the circumstance. Several would block anything vaguely opposed to Russia - right now.
What is needed multiple, flexible alliances. Some polling of common needs might make sense - if carefully structured.
For example, a common European artillery shell stockpile. But this would have to be on the basis of no vetos. Imagine a setup where you could simply buy shells from the stockpile, as a participant, at a fixed price.
"France and Britain are drawing up plans to create a “reassurance force” that would rely on western air power, backed by the US, to enforce any ceasefire deal in Ukraine and deter potential Russian aggression.
The plans, which western officials said were still being fleshed out, give a bigger role to western air forces than proposals previously floated by European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron that potentially involved a large number of soldiers deployed to Ukraine.
Instead they rely on a domain where western militaries have a clear advantage over Russia: their air forces. Land troops would instead be used, at least initially, to protect key Ukrainian sites, such as ports and nuclear power stations."
It's probably not kept pace with the latest developments, but it seems the right direction of travel.
If it relies on the USA it is not. They can no longer be regarded as reliable allies.
How long before Trump redirects European orders for F-35's to India?
2% of Lib Dems think Ukraine are mostly responsible for the war
All parties have their extremes
Going off a couple of comments I'm getting on my YouTube I must be in the 0.2% of LibDems who isn't just pro Putin but is also pro-Nazi...
You did say Musk isn't the owner of Tesla but merely "the CEO and figurehead." Which made me think he must have sold all his shares, but the internet says he is the biggest shareholder owning more than 13% if the company.
So I'm not surprised people are calling you out.
Huh? Most CEOs are shareholders. Why did you think CEO = no shares? He owns 13%. Which means he doesn’t own 87%. As I said, he can be ousted by the board and ousted by the shareholders.
He makes out like it’s his personal fiefdom. It isn’t.
Neither is the US government, but right now he can treat both largely as if they are. And those with the power to say no are saying carry on.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
Er, no. We didn't "push" anything. Putin's former vassals decided they wanted to be part of the west, not run by his puppets.
You've internalised the Trump attitude that Ukraine is just a passive possession to be handed back.
I'm sorry but this simply isn’t true. Corrupt oligarch Victor Yanukovich may have been, but he was the legitimately elected Ukrainian President at the time of his ouster; that is not disputed.
If 'we' includes the USA, we absolutely "pushed" the Maidan protests, and subsequently took control over the politics of Ukraine to the extent that there's a tape of Victoria Nuland the US Secretary of State choosing who is going to lead Ukraine and saying "Fuck the EU" because they want a say.
Of course, the USA's role in Ukraine is also completely forgotten in Trump’s revisionist account.
Yanukovich was President, but was ousted by a vote in Parliament that called for new elections, so was constitutional.
Comments
"France and Britain are drawing up plans to create a “reassurance force” that would rely on western air power, backed by the US, to enforce any ceasefire deal in Ukraine and deter potential Russian aggression.
The plans, which western officials said were still being fleshed out, give a bigger role to western air forces than proposals previously floated by European leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron that potentially involved a large number of soldiers deployed to Ukraine.
Instead they rely on a domain where western militaries have a clear advantage over Russia: their air forces. Land troops would instead be used, at least initially, to protect key Ukrainian sites, such as ports and nuclear power stations."
It's probably not kept pace with the latest developments, but it seems the right direction of travel.
Where is the opposition in the USA?
They seem remarkably quiet right now.
I do try to see where the US interest is in make places less dependent on them or actively hostile to them, but I struggle to see it.
Probably the same kind of attitude that seems monetary contributions in international affairs as having zero impact, so can be abandoned as our 'interest' (that is money) is improved by not doing it.
At the moment, drones are. So programs that were unsexy - such as Dragonfire / HELWS - suddenly become sexy and vital.
But what if, in three years time, the threat is robo-dogs firing guns?
Or in naval terms: we may be concentrating on the threat from hypersonic missiles. What if the new threat is fast torpedoes (as China has allegedly developed)?
The tech is evolving rapidly, in part because of the Ukraine war. We need a military and industry that is both specific towards threat and which can pivot quickly. Or we will have thousands of horses when we need thousands of Fords.
What will arguably change that is the sharp focus on a potential Reform government or main opppsition as we reach an election. Either because they make missteps that harm themselves or voters who are horrified at the idea of them in power coalesce behind the party that looks like their opponents wherever they are.
A Reform UK general election candidate who described Russian president Vladimir Putin as "very good" has clarified his comments. When asked about remarks he gave at a hustings event, Julian Malins said the leader was a "good Russian president" but not a good man "in the Christian sense"...
Leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, said he did not agree with the original comment, but he did not want party candidates to be told what to think.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckddg52djdwo
He agreed with the comments, let's not kid ourselves - there will be any number of things that candidates or members will say that would see them kicked out of Reform if they wanted. Just recently in Wiltshire they rebuked and removed a chair of the party for spreading material they did not approve (about Afghans being settled).
Establishing operational independence from the US would be worth a bit of money and attention.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/06/24/the-ussr-made-a-space-radio-complex-out-of-an-old-battleship-65-years-later-ukraine-is-trying-to-blow-it-up/
Seems like a similar idea and similar reasoning?
The only thing that might create meaningful opposition to Trump is economic recession. Although there's no guarantee that the problem of public discontent at the ballot box won't be solved by simply rigging elections.
Both AOC and Buttigeig are being fairly full on.
https://bsky.app/profile/aoc.bsky.social/post/3ligcewocfc2z
https://bsky.app/profile/petebuttigieg.bsky.social/post/3liiq3osyys23
Bernie too
https://bsky.app/profile/sanders.senate.gov/post/3lik6gy4hvc2e
Trump and his American oligarchs are now openly aligning themselves with Putin and his Russian oligarchs.
This Putin-Trump alliance means abandoning our allies, supporting authoritarianism and undermining our democratic traditions.
NATO has been very successful. The obvious approach is a new NATO minus the US (but maybe plus Panama?). Trump would see that as a win, perhaps.
However, Gorbachev neither asked for nor was given any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany.34 The issue was not even under discussion at NATO at the time, since the Warsaw Pact and the USSR were both still in existence. Even if the Warsaw Pact’s days were clearly numbered, there was no expectation in Western capitals in the autumn of 1990 that the USSR would collapse a year later.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconceptions-debate-russia/myth-03-russia-was-promised-nato-would-not-enlarge
So I'm not surprised people are calling you out.
But we do need to checkmate hypersonic missiles. It isn't an option to ignore them.
Not people who are going to be looking after shareholders' interests. Hence the massive pay bonuses they propose for Musk...
*(I mean, that is happening regardless, but I mean accepting it as a good or at least neutral thing by making the war not one side's fault anymore)
When it comes to getting support to Ukraine then rapid and piecemeal massively trumps sclerotic, slow and never delivered. Unification is a weakness not a strength.
"You may fire when ready"
Secondly, the Brexit dynamics were there in 2017. Such as they are here now...they may not favour Reform. Labour unpopularity could help them. But the reverse may also be true in terms of pushing waverers back into the Labour camp.
We didn't "push" anything. Putin's former vassals decided they wanted to be part of the west, not run by his puppets.
You've internalised the Trump attitude that Ukraine is just a passive possession to be handed back.
We need to demonstrate that the UK stands behind them - at least during an interim period while we wait for Trump to get distracted by Panama or something. I think I've finally found a use for the Red Arrows...
Real 4 City 2 aggregate
I shall put on my shopping list, alongside the shaved parmesan. I don't think good brie keeps well, but on the other hand it may not need to, what with the speed of developments.
But one thing we don't agree on is Reagan. I see him as a flawed hero; she sees him as an utter villain. I understand where she's coming from, but I weigh the events differently.
(Or is it Musk?)
Edit and damn just after I wrote that they equalised.
And he was capable of subtlety when needed.
(Whistles Ode to Joy). And Trump will refuse to meet them
More likely he’ll probably just meet them and publicly humiliate them at this point.
jk
Trump as Head of State, and Musk as Head of Government. Things Mr Windsor and Mr Starmer.
Translated, Musk is in control of the White House and Susie Wiles is marginalised.
There's a lot of chaos in the head of the beast.
What we need is for a Judge to find Elon is contempt of court and whack him in Prison for 90 days, incommunicado. But then those around him are no better. If Trump and Musk go, they get JD Vance.
That asks a question for our PBers familiar with the US Constitution - can an election be called before the next due date?
Trump has chosen to side with Putin and no country can have any confidence that the US will step up if an another NATO country is attacked .
It’s over and any security guarantees given by the US for Ukraine are worthless .
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/tariff-deportation-f-35-aircraft-trump-pm-modi-meet-house-panel-9845331/
That's probably up to her to say; but my view is that it's very much her perspective on Reagan, growing up in a foreign country at the time. As such, I think her perspective are not quite the usual UK left-wing arguments.
I think even Reagan's fans will say he was not perfect. But I think he, on balance, was better than not.
Whether they'll continue to mean anything or be free and fair is yet to be determined.
That was the defining moment in his life. All else fades into insignificance
More humiliating to have them turn up and cool their heels because he’s shagging a hooker or something
He makes out like it’s his personal fiefdom. It isn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1864_United_States_presidential_election
If 'we' includes the USA, we absolutely "pushed" the Maidan protests, and subsequently took control over the politics of Ukraine to the extent that there's a tape of Victoria Nuland the US Secretary of State choosing who is going to lead Ukraine and saying "Fuck the EU" because they want a say.
Of course, the USA's role in Ukraine is also completely forgotten in Trump’s revisionist account.
- Not extra F35s imo, though it would make sense to proceed with the 10 or so due in 2025. But the USA can turn those off aiui. Eurofighters, for which the production lines are still running.
- At this point imo priority has to be on things that are doable in a very few years. We have 8 frigates building at present, so some speed up should be possible.
- Our ships are traditionally lightly armed. There are currently some upgrades rolling through, but we can do more.
- There exist far more heavily armed versions of eg River Class (eg Thai Navy).
- Wind up existing production. Is the new ammunition factory at Washington running 2, 3 or 4 shifts? I'd add in reconsidering our foreswearing of types of munition such as cluster shells.
- Gearing up of reserves, and recently-left army soldiers who still have return-on-request obligations.
- Marginal extra quantities on top of existing orders eg armoured vehicles.
- But all this needs personnel, so that brings things like our heavily tied down pilot training system in question, and RN recruitment.
- A number of things are going to need emergency measures declared to bring suppliers into line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych
The White House Deputy Chief of Staff is posting images of Donald Trump in a crown and robe after Trump described himself as a king.
https://bsky.app/profile/ariehkovler.com/post/3likk2iw5ha2c
It seems clear, to me, that what various European nations will do depends on the circumstance. Several would block anything vaguely opposed to Russia - right now.
What is needed multiple, flexible alliances. Some polling of common needs might make sense - if carefully structured.
For example, a common European artillery shell stockpile. But this would have to be on the basis of no vetos. Imagine a setup where you could simply buy shells from the stockpile, as a participant, at a fixed price.
And those with the power to say no are saying carry on.