@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.
PS Army and Reserves 2010 (when Defence Spending was 2.5%) and 2024. ChatGPT summary - it is about right afaics.
One thing we need to recover this is more loyalty to the country. Those "I would fight" numbers we have looked at.
Regular Army Personnel:
2010: Approximately 109,000 Regular Army personnel. 2020: Approximately 79,000 Regular Army personnel. 2024: Approximately 74,296 Regular Army personnel.
Army Reserve Personnel:
2010: Approximately 29,000 Army Reserve personnel. 2020: Approximately 30,000 Army Reserve personnel. 2024: Approximately 25,934 Army Reserve personnel.
In the event that Zelensky should go into exile, where might he go?
Poland? Too close, probably not wanted. USA? Not now. Britain? Seems unlikely. Israel? No. (It would be like sticking two fingers up at Russia.) Somewhere with a big Ukrainian community that dates back to the 1940s? No. (I'll leave it to readers to work out the reasons.) My guess would be the UAE.
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.
In the event that Zelensky should go into exile, where might he go?
Poland? Too close, probably not wanted. USA? Not now. Britain? Seems unlikely. Israel? No. (It would be like sticking two fingers up at Russia.) Somewhere with a big Ukrainian community that dates back to the 1940s? No. (I'll leave it to readers to work out the reasons.) My guess would be the UAE.
He doesn't want a ride, he wants ammunition. And we should give it to him.
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.
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.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
@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.
Writing as an avowed non-expert, what's the necessity (or advantage) of producing cluster munitions? I've seen first hand the impact of cluster munitions used in Syria; imv there should be a very high bar to meet before we make or use them.
@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.
The Ukrainians want tanks (lots), APCs (they love Bradley for its serviceability) and mobile artillery (shoot and scoot)
The problem in the West is the desperate attempts to sex up basic hardware like this - air mobility and other nonsense.
We could buy 1,000 mobile artillery systems for £5 billion. Which would give us more artillery firepower than the entire Russian army, probably.
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.
Portion frozen spag bol time !
Dangerous to rely on electricity. My hard tack was baked during covid, and is as tasty as the day it was made...
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.
Portion frozen spag bol time !
Dangerous to rely on electricity. My hard tack was baked during covid, and is as tasty as the day it was made...
@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.
Writing as an avowed non-expert, what's the necessity (or advantage) of producing cluster munitions? I've seen first hand the impact of cluster munitions used in Syria; imv there should be a very high bar to meet before we make or use them.
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
I mostly remember him for his "Stan'n'Laurel" appearances with Ollie North.
And possibly the "The President's Brain is Missing" from 1980s Spitting Image.
In the event that Zelensky should go into exile, where might he go?
Poland? Too close, probably not wanted. USA? Not now. Britain? Seems unlikely. Israel? No. (It would be like sticking two fingers up at Russia.) Somewhere with a big Ukrainian community that dates back to the 1940s? No. (I'll leave it to readers to work out the reasons.) My guess would be the UAE.
He doesn't want a ride, he wants ammunition. And we should give it to him.
O/T - @DavidL, I PM'ed you a question about your PB Prediction Competition entry, if you could message me back an answer, that would be great. Thanks
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.
Portion frozen spag bol time !
Dangerous to rely on electricity. My hard tack was baked during covid, and is as tasty as the day it was made...
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.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
The problem in 1940 was varying willingness to fight, not command and control of allied armies.
Even the French (slowest OODA cycle possible) managed to coordinate well with the BEF - when they went being hammered…
Too many on the UK Right are thinking what they read on twitter from the US online right is the new majority opinion, hence some diving into a bit of Trumpism.
So to counter that here's something I read on twitter.
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.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
The problem in 1940 was varying willingness to fight, not command and control of allied armies.
Even the French (slow lest OODA cycle possible) managed to coordinate well with the BEF - when they went being hammered…
A unified command structure under Gamelin would have probably performed even worse.
This was a man who thought that the radio was evil.
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.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
And yet Hitler lost and the Allies won.
We could have done much, much worse. We could have lost WWII. We could have had the "unified command" of forces led by a fascist-sympathiser or a fascist themselves.
Its funny how many seem to want diversity in everything but where its most needed and then "unity is strength". No diversity is strength.
@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.
The only manned winged aircraft that can fly off the QE2-class carriers are F35Bs. If we lose them, we be stepmom'd.
IIUC The US holds the software to the F35 and provides us with mission parameters on request: we don't change the software or parameterise it, they do. Only the Israelis had the sense to tell them no and develop their own. Yes, we actually did a Battlestar Galactica mistake. Ooops.
I don't know if it's realistic to wrench control away by developing our own software: it's not doable by people or AI in the time available, so we'd have to black-box it and train a neural network to match the outputs for every possible input. This is not actually impossible if you do it for a finite set of inputs and interpolate - woo, being a statistician be fun!
Oh, incidentally, the F35 variants (A,B,C) are so popular they are virtually the right arm of the free world. Which is a bit of a bugger. Did I mention Battlestar Galactica?
In the event that Zelensky should go into exile, where might he go?
Poland? Too close, probably not wanted. USA? Not now. Britain? Seems unlikely. Israel? No. (It would be like sticking two fingers up at Russia.) Somewhere with a big Ukrainian community that dates back to the 1940s? No. (I'll leave it to readers to work out the reasons.) My guess would be the UAE.
He doesn't want a ride, he wants ammunition. And we should give it to him.
Are you coming from the position that "Putin barged into his neighbour's garden without permission, turn a blind eye and he'll be at Calais next, and we should have known the end of the cold war was phony"?
If anyone really really wants to trash-talk Putin, they could suggest that Russian intelligence-owned figures in Ukraine (military or civilian) may have been instrumental in continuing this war. Increasing military spending is one thing, but Russia has actually moved to a war economy. The difference means a lot to billionaires.
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?
No, in the sense one cannot be called.
If the President and Vice President both died, leaving somebody else (currently the Speaker of the House would be next in line, although he could refuse the role) as Acting President, a special election could be held at the midterms, but it’s never happened.
@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.
The Ukrainians want tanks (lots), APCs (they love Bradley for its serviceability) and mobile artillery (shoot and scoot)
The problem in the West is the desperate attempts to sex up basic hardware like this - air mobility and other nonsense.
We could buy 1,000 mobile artillery systems for £5 billion. Which would give us more artillery firepower than the entire Russian army, probably.
But that’s not sexy.
Quantity has its own quality. First we need personnel, then we need equipment that is simple to train people to use effectively, such as conventional artillery and mortars. IFVs for mobility and lots and lots of micro drones.
We don't need 5th generation fighters, not unless we are fighting the Yanks.
In the event that Zelensky should go into exile, where might he go?
Poland? Too close, probably not wanted. USA? Not now. Britain? Seems unlikely. Israel? No. (It would be like sticking two fingers up at Russia.) Somewhere with a big Ukrainian community that dates back to the 1940s? No. (I'll leave it to readers to work out the reasons.) My guess would be the UAE.
He doesn't want a ride, he wants ammunition. And we should give it to him.
O/T - @DavidL, I PM'ed you a question about your PB Prediction Competition entry, if you could message me back an answer, that would be great. Thanks
Ben I did, did you not get it? I will try resending it.
Example of somone presumably trying to walk back. However sympathetic you are to the populist cause, however “realist” on Ukraine, it is impossible to defend the head of the world’s most powerful nation putting out reckless semi-literate screeds like this[Trump Zelensky post] https://nitter.poast.org/freddiesayers/status/1892294755536515308#m
The replies still include a lot totally on board the Trump train.
From the BBC News website, about twenty minutes ago:
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has spoken to Zelensky this evening, to express his support as "Ukraine's democratically elected leader", according to Downing Street.
Starmer told Zelensky it is "perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during war time as the UK did" during World War Two, the statement adds.
Downing Street says the PM also "reiterated his support for the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deterred Russia from any future aggression".
That's Starmer off the White House Christmas card list.
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?
No, in the sense one cannot be called.
If the President and Vice President both died, leaving somebody else (currently the Speaker of the House would be next in line, although he could refuse the role) as Acting President, a special election could be held at the midterms, but it’s never happened.
The Americans managed to removed both Nixon and Agnew without resorting to an election.
@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.
The only manned winged aircraft that can fly off the QE2-class carriers are F35Bs. If we lose them, we be stepmom'd.
IIUC The US holds the software to the F35 and provides us with mission parameters on request: we don't change the software or parameterise it, they do. Only the Israelis had the sense to tell them no and develop their own. Yes, we actually did a Battlestar Galactica mistake. Ooops.
I don't know if it's realistic to wrench control away by developing our own software: it's not doable by people or AI in the time available, so we'd have to black-box it and train a neural network to match the outputs for every possible input. This is not actually impossible if you do it for a finite set of inputs and interpolate - woo, being a statistician be fun!
Oh, incidentally, the F35 variants (A,B,C) are so popular they are virtually the right arm of the free world. Which is a bit of a bugger. Did I mention Battlestar Galactica?
Utterly f*****g ridiculous that some idiot/traitor signed a contract for a plane we can't fly without permission from a foreign country. I mean what the actual f***k? Did Keir Starmer do a career sabbatical in the MOD, or are they just all like that?
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
I mostly remember him for his "Stan'n'Laurel" appearances with Ollie North.
And possibly the "The President's Brain is Missing" from 1980s Spitting Image.
I tried to watch spitting image (that episode by chance) last night. A lot less good than I remembered
@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.
The only manned winged aircraft that can fly off the QE2-class carriers are F35Bs. If we lose them, we be stepmom'd.
IIUC The US holds the software to the F35 and provides us with mission parameters on request: we don't change the software or parameterise it, they do. Only the Israelis had the sense to tell them no and develop their own. Yes, we actually did a Battlestar Galactica mistake. Ooops.
I don't know if it's realistic to wrench control away by developing our own software: it's not doable by people or AI in the time available, so we'd have to black-box it and train a neural network to match the outputs for every possible input. This is not actually impossible if you do it for a finite set of inputs and interpolate - woo, being a statistician be fun!
Oh, incidentally, the F35 variants (A,B,C) are so popular they are virtually the right arm of the free world. Which is a bit of a bugger. Did I mention Battlestar Galactica?
I hate to say it, but maybe the French were right.
They are the only Navy other than the US to have a CATOBAR carrier, and they fly their own Dassault fighters off it.
From the BBC News website, about twenty minutes ago:
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has spoken to Zelensky this evening, to express his support as "Ukraine's democratically elected leader", according to Downing Street.
Starmer told Zelensky it is "perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during war time as the UK did" during World War Two, the statement adds.
Downing Street says the PM also "reiterated his support for the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deterred Russia from any future aggression".
That's Starmer off the White House Christmas card list.
They try to put the mollifying text in to sooth Trump, but it never works - he only sees the defiance to his will, not any nuanced support/criticism.
@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.
Writing as an avowed non-expert, what's the necessity (or advantage) of producing cluster munitions? I've seen first hand the impact of cluster munitions used in Syria; imv there should be a very high bar to meet before we make or use them.
AIUI they are only legal when used against armed forces under the Convention on Cluster Munitions treaty.
In Ukraine they were sent in 2023 from USA stocks when normal munitions were in short supply, and were used against targets such as convoys and infantry concentrations - and made a big difference, especially from HIMARS. Russia has used them on civilian targets.
Everybody else (not USA) afaik has signed it and destroyed stocks. If the USA is going to cancel supplies, I think that removes the only supplier, other than pre-existing Ukraine stocks.
So I think there is - in the circumstances - a possible need to reconsider.
In the event that Zelensky should go into exile, where might he go?
Poland? Too close, probably not wanted. USA? Not now. Britain? Seems unlikely. Israel? No. (It would be like sticking two fingers up at Russia.) Somewhere with a big Ukrainian community that dates back to the 1940s? No. (I'll leave it to readers to work out the reasons.) My guess would be the UAE.
He doesn't want a ride, he wants ammunition. And we should give it to him.
O/T - @DavidL, I PM'ed you a question about your PB Prediction Competition entry, if you could message me back an answer, that would be great. Thanks
Ben I did, did you not get it? I will try resending it.
Ellen Milligan @EllenAMilligan · 3m Key details of UK-France led 'reassurance force' to protect post-war Ukraine: -<30k troops at ports, cities, infrastructure (not on border) -Aircraft, forces in Romania/Poland, black sea patrols -Close border surveillance -Contingent on US airpower, intel
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.
His fingers aren't sausagey enough to be a real king.
But his son Barron "Damien" Trump has a King Leka of Albania feeling about him. He looks far more scary than Nicholas van Hoogstraten any day of the week, as if he's thinking "If anybody here says a single disrespectful word, he's dead". Probably made his bones years ago.
From the BBC News website, about twenty minutes ago:
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has spoken to Zelensky this evening, to express his support as "Ukraine's democratically elected leader", according to Downing Street.
Starmer told Zelensky it is "perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during war time as the UK did" during World War Two, the statement adds.
Downing Street says the PM also "reiterated his support for the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deterred Russia from any future aggression".
That's Starmer off the White House Christmas card list.
They try to put the mollifying text in to sooth Trump, but it never works - he only sees the defiance to his will, not any nuanced support/criticism.
You are better off not attempting to mollify Trump, because one cannot mollify him.
It is better to be his enemy than his friend: at least he's circumspect with his enemies because he worries he might get hurt.
From the BBC News website, about twenty minutes ago:
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has spoken to Zelensky this evening, to express his support as "Ukraine's democratically elected leader", according to Downing Street.
Starmer told Zelensky it is "perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during war time as the UK did" during World War Two, the statement adds.
Downing Street says the PM also "reiterated his support for the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deterred Russia from any future aggression".
That's Starmer off the White House Christmas card list.
They try to put the mollifying text in to sooth Trump, but it never works - he only sees the defiance to his will, not any nuanced support/criticism.
Who cares anymore? Trump doesn’t give a shit, and neither should we
From the BBC News website, about twenty minutes ago:
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has spoken to Zelensky this evening, to express his support as "Ukraine's democratically elected leader", according to Downing Street.
Starmer told Zelensky it is "perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during war time as the UK did" during World War Two, the statement adds.
Downing Street says the PM also "reiterated his support for the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deterred Russia from any future aggression".
That's Starmer off the White House Christmas card list.
John Bolton @AmbJohnBolton · 3h Trump’s characterizations of Zelensky and Ukraine are some of the most shameful remarks ever made by a US President. Our support of Ukraine has never been about charity, our way of life at home depends on our strength abroad.
From the BBC News website, about twenty minutes ago:
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has spoken to Zelensky this evening, to express his support as "Ukraine's democratically elected leader", according to Downing Street.
Starmer told Zelensky it is "perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during war time as the UK did" during World War Two, the statement adds.
Downing Street says the PM also "reiterated his support for the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deterred Russia from any future aggression".
That's Starmer off the White House Christmas card list.
They try to put the mollifying text in to sooth Trump, but it never works - he only sees the defiance to his will, not any nuanced support/criticism.
Who is writing for the BBC? It is his support of or to Ukraine's democratically elected leader, unless Starmer is claiming the job for himself. Which if he pisses off there and leaves us alone, I'm all for.
From the BBC News website, about twenty minutes ago:
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has spoken to Zelensky this evening, to express his support as "Ukraine's democratically elected leader", according to Downing Street.
Starmer told Zelensky it is "perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during war time as the UK did" during World War Two, the statement adds.
Downing Street says the PM also "reiterated his support for the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deterred Russia from any future aggression".
That's Starmer off the White House Christmas card list.
They try to put the mollifying text in to sooth Trump, but it never works - he only sees the defiance to his will, not any nuanced support/criticism.
Who is writing for the BBC? It is his support of or to Ukraine's democratically elected leader, unless Starmer is claiming the job for himself. Which if he pisses off there and leaves us alone, I'm all for.
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?
No, in the sense one cannot be called.
If the President and Vice President both died, leaving somebody else (currently the Speaker of the House would be next in line, although he could refuse the role) as Acting President, a special election could be held at the midterms, but it’s never happened.
When a VP becomes president, a new VP is appointed by the new President, subject to Senate ratification.
Ford has the unique attribute of being the only POTUS who never won an election for POTUS or VPOTUS. He was appointed VP in 1973 after Agnew resigned, and appointed Rockefeller as new VP, so from 1974-76 neither had a democratic mandate.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 1h Honestly, could Trump be doing any more damage to our national security if he were taking direct orders from Putin and Xi?
John Bolton @AmbJohnBolton · 3h Trump’s characterizations of Zelensky and Ukraine are some of the most shameful remarks ever made by a US President. Our support of Ukraine has never been about charity, our way of life at home depends on our strength abroad.
I know Bolton is not really liked by left or right in the USA anymore, but I am surprised there are not more voices trying to counter the idea support for Ukraine is just about charity.
From the BBC News website, about twenty minutes ago:
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has spoken to Zelensky this evening, to express his support as "Ukraine's democratically elected leader", according to Downing Street.
Starmer told Zelensky it is "perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during war time as the UK did" during World War Two, the statement adds.
Downing Street says the PM also "reiterated his support for the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deterred Russia from any future aggression".
That's Starmer off the White House Christmas card list.
They try to put the mollifying text in to sooth Trump, but it never works - he only sees the defiance to his will, not any nuanced support/criticism.
The Defence Secretary is currently buzzing around the Russian border* on a snowmobile, so that's something.
@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.
Writing as an avowed non-expert, what's the necessity (or advantage) of producing cluster munitions? I've seen first hand the impact of cluster munitions used in Syria; imv there should be a very high bar to meet before we make or use them.
AIUI they are only legal when used against armed forces under the Convention on Cluster Munitions treaty.
In Ukraine they were sent in 2023 from USA stocks when normal munitions were in short supply, and were used against targets such as convoys and infantry concentrations - and made a big difference, especially from HIMARS. Russia has used them on civilian targets.
Everybody else (not USA) afaik has signed it and destroyed stocks. If the USA is going to cancel supplies, I think that removes the only supplier, other than pre-existing Ukraine stocks.
So I think there is - in the circumstances - a possible need to reconsider.
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?
No, in the sense one cannot be called.
If the President and Vice President both died, leaving somebody else (currently the Speaker of the House would be next in line, although he could refuse the role) as Acting President, a special election could be held at the midterms, but it’s never happened.
I disagree. There is a clear line of succession per 25th Amendment. No need for a special election at all. An Acting Presidency does not necessitate a special election.
A problem arises if the last individual named in the line of succession, in this instance the Homeland Security Secretary, refuses or is unable to assume office. At that point the Congress and the “States Assembled” must decided on the next course of action.
Special elections are typically held only in legislative offices at both State and Federal level and are specifically defined.
@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.
From the BBC News website, about twenty minutes ago:
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has spoken to Zelensky this evening, to express his support as "Ukraine's democratically elected leader", according to Downing Street.
Starmer told Zelensky it is "perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during war time as the UK did" during World War Two, the statement adds.
Downing Street says the PM also "reiterated his support for the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deterred Russia from any future aggression".
That's Starmer off the White House Christmas card list.
From the BBC News website, about twenty minutes ago:
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has spoken to Zelensky this evening, to express his support as "Ukraine's democratically elected leader", according to Downing Street.
Starmer told Zelensky it is "perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during war time as the UK did" during World War Two, the statement adds.
Downing Street says the PM also "reiterated his support for the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deterred Russia from any future aggression".
That's Starmer off the White House Christmas card list.
They try to put the mollifying text in to sooth Trump, but it never works - he only sees the defiance to his will, not any nuanced support/criticism.
The Defence Secretary is currently buzzing around the Russian border* on a snowmobile, so that's something.
*with Norway
I don't think I know who the Defence Secretary is. Probably best to keep it that way really.
In the event that Zelensky should go into exile, where might he go?
Poland? Too close, probably not wanted. USA? Not now. Britain? Seems unlikely. Israel? No. (It would be like sticking two fingers up at Russia.) Somewhere with a big Ukrainian community that dates back to the 1940s? No. (I'll leave it to readers to work out the reasons.) My guess would be the UAE.
He doesn't want a ride, he wants ammunition. And we should give it to him.
O/T - @DavidL, I PM'ed you a question about your PB Prediction Competition entry, if you could message me back an answer, that would be great. Thanks
Ben I did, did you not get it? I will try resending it.
In the event that Zelensky should go into exile, where might he go?
Poland? Too close, probably not wanted. USA? Not now. Britain? Seems unlikely. Israel? No. (It would be like sticking two fingers up at Russia.) Somewhere with a big Ukrainian community that dates back to the 1940s? No. (I'll leave it to readers to work out the reasons.) My guess would be the UAE.
He doesn't want a ride, he wants ammunition. And we should give it to him.
Are you coming from the position that "Putin barged into his neighbour's garden without permission, turn a blind eye and he'll be at Calais next, and we should have known the end of the cold war was phony"?
If anyone really really wants to trash-talk Putin, they could suggest that Russian intelligence-owned figures in Ukraine (military or civilian) may have been instrumental in continuing this war. Increasing military spending is one thing, but Russia has actually moved to a war economy. The difference means a lot to billionaires.
I am coming from the position that Russia's invasion of Ukraine 3 years ago (and indeed their prior invasions before that) were illegal and criminal, as has been much of their conduct since.
The idea that Ukraine has sought to prolong this war when they are the ones being invaded is preposterous. Putin does not need to be trash talked, he needs to be locked up for the rest of his life. Russia's economy is on an unsustainable path as shown by the decline in the Ruble. This war has been utterly ruinous for them and I hope it brings an end to Putin's murderous regime.
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.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
And yet Hitler lost and the Allies won.
We could have done much, much worse. We could have lost WWII. We could have had the "unified command" of forces led by a fascist-sympathiser or a fascist themselves.
Its funny how many seem to want diversity in everything but where its most needed and then "unity is strength". No diversity is strength.
No one individual should have autocratic power.
The Western allies had a unified command for the attack on North Africa, the invasion of Italy and then D-Day onwards.
Could there be a PB Prediction Competition where everyone picks an outcome to which they think they'd assign a much higher probability than everyone else would?
E.g. if somebody feels the RoC and PRC will reunify peacefully by the end of the year, or that Trump will be impeached, convicted, and jailed, they might choose that.
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?
No, in the sense one cannot be called.
If the President and Vice President both died, leaving somebody else (currently the Speaker of the House would be next in line, although he could refuse the role) as Acting President, a special election could be held at the midterms, but it’s never happened.
There's absolutely no constitutional way to call a special election for POTUS at midterms that I know of.
Trump and Vance could both drop dead today, there wouldn't be a special election, the line of succession exists until the next election.
From the BBC News website, about twenty minutes ago:
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has spoken to Zelensky this evening, to express his support as "Ukraine's democratically elected leader", according to Downing Street.
Starmer told Zelensky it is "perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during war time as the UK did" during World War Two, the statement adds.
Downing Street says the PM also "reiterated his support for the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deterred Russia from any future aggression".
That's Starmer off the White House Christmas card list.
Well done.
We are gonna get tariffed for this.
Fuck him (Trump).
We will endure.
Everyone's going to end up getting tariffed (except Vladimir.) Of course, once the United States has exhausted its capacity to do harm and made everyone hate it, it will find that people begin to ignore it. A hermit kingdom spewing angry nonsense at a bored world. A bit like a giant North Korea.
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.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
And yet Hitler lost and the Allies won.
We could have done much, much worse. We could have lost WWII. We could have had the "unified command" of forces led by a fascist-sympathiser or a fascist themselves.
Its funny how many seem to want diversity in everything but where its most needed and then "unity is strength". No diversity is strength.
No one individual should have autocratic power.
The Western allies had a unified command for the attack on North Africa, the invasion of Italy and then D-Day onwards.
Yes, as allies, working together - not under a constitutional unification.
Ad hoc unification is much more dynamically better than institutionalised.
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.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
And yet Hitler lost and the Allies won.
We could have done much, much worse. We could have lost WWII. We could have had the "unified command" of forces led by a fascist-sympathiser or a fascist themselves.
Its funny how many seem to want diversity in everything but where its most needed and then "unity is strength". No diversity is strength.
No one individual should have autocratic power.
The Western allies had a unified command for the attack on North Africa, the invasion of Italy and then D-Day onwards.
Yes, as allies, working together - not under a constitutional unification.
Ad hoc unification is much more dynamically better than institutionalised.
And there were different mixes of forces in each theatre.
Trump is pissed at Zelensky for refusing the shakedown...
@JacquiHeinrich National Security Adviser Mike Waltz says President Trump's relationship with Zelenskyy has soured over his refusal to sign the rare earth minerals deal the US has proposed:
WALTZ: "I think the frustration is really stemmed just in the in the last week from this bizarre pushback and escalation of rhetoric over presentation of what we see as an absolute opportunity. And that's to have the United States invest in Ukrainian infrastructure, to have them grow both their minerals, their natural resources, their oil and gas... We look at the type of aid the Europeans are providing, and it's often in the form of loans. It's being repaid with the interest on seized Russian assets. We believe the American taxpayer deserves to recoup much of their investment."
@ZelenskyyUa I spoke with UK Prime Minister @Keir_Starmer . The United Kingdom’s role in fortifying Europe’s defense and security is important for us.
We discussed upcoming plans and opportunities. UK’s support matters indeed, and we will never forget the respect the British people have shown for Ukraine and our citizens.
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?
No, in the sense one cannot be called.
If the President and Vice President both died, leaving somebody else (currently the Speaker of the House would be next in line, although he could refuse the role) as Acting President, a special election could be held at the midterms, but it’s never happened.
There's absolutely no constitutional way to call a special election for POTUS at midterms that I know of.
Trump and Vance could both drop dead today, there wouldn't be a special election, the line of succession exists until the next election.
Not quite correct. Article II says somebody shall ‘act as President until the disability be removed or a President be elected.’ It was specifically clarified in 1947 that this means Congress can hold a special election (‘If a statutory successor is serving as acting President, Congress may, but is not required to, call a new presidential election’). That would however be like a Senate special - it wouldn’t change the cycle of Presidential elections in leap and centennial years.
For the benefit of people above who appear not to have understood what I was saying, I do know about the 25th Amendment, thanks, I was talking about what happened if both the Presidency and Vice Presidency were vacant at once.
Putin says Trump must go further before he’ll even agree to meet.
Putin is entirely in the driving seat. The US has alienated its own allies, given Russia nearly all of what it wanted, bought Putin’s warped view of reality, and can’t even guarantee a meeting. The art of the deal, indeed.
@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.
Writing as an avowed non-expert, what's the necessity (or advantage) of producing cluster munitions? I've seen first hand the impact of cluster munitions used in Syria; imv there should be a very high bar to meet before we make or use them.
AIUI they are only legal when used against armed forces under the Convention on Cluster Munitions treaty.
In Ukraine they were sent in 2023 from USA stocks when normal munitions were in short supply, and were used against targets such as convoys and infantry concentrations - and made a big difference, especially from HIMARS. Russia has used them on civilian targets.
Everybody else (not USA) afaik has signed it and destroyed stocks. If the USA is going to cancel supplies, I think that removes the only supplier, other than pre-existing Ukraine stocks.
So I think there is - in the circumstances - a possible need to reconsider.
Thanks - I appreciate the detailed answer.
Here's a 7 minute video discussing the situation when they were supplied to Ukraine. A cluster shell can cover an area of an acre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6MqwUszTMw
One application I did not mention is against airfields - they can turn aircraft into colanders, which renders them effectively irreparable.
Also some missiles (eg ATACMS) have versions with cluster heads containing 1000 bomblets, for similar situations. Himars I think use what are effectively very big ball bearings, or small bomblets - depending on the target. The former would be for trenches or an HQ or soft vehicles, the latter for armour.
HIMARS and ATACMS and other systems have forced Russian HQs, Logistics and Anti-Air defences 10s of miles back from the frontline.
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?
No, in the sense one cannot be called.
If the President and Vice President both died, leaving somebody else (currently the Speaker of the House would be next in line, although he could refuse the role) as Acting President, a special election could be held at the midterms, but it’s never happened.
There's absolutely no constitutional way to call a special election for POTUS at midterms that I know of.
Trump and Vance could both drop dead today, there wouldn't be a special election, the line of succession exists until the next election.
Not quite correct. Article II says somebody shall ‘act as President until the disability be removed or a President be elected.’ It was specifically clarified in 1947 that this means Congress can hold a special election (‘If a statutory successor is serving as acting President, Congress may, but is not required to, call a new presidential election’). That would however be like a Senate special - it wouldn’t change the cycle of Presidential elections in leap and centennial years.
For the benefit of people above who appear not to have understood what I was saying, u do know about the 25th Amendment, thanks, I was talking about what happened if both the Presidency and Vice Presidency were vacant at once.
The 25th Amendment supersedes any 1947 clarification.
It is not possible for Congress to do anything with both the Presidency and Vice Presidency vacant at once, as the 25th ensures the Presidency is filled by whoever is next in the line of succession, which was not the case in 1947.
Putin says Trump must go further before he’ll even agree to meet.
Putin is entirely in the driving seat. The US has alienated its own allies, given Russia nearly all of what it wanted, bought Putin’s warped view of reality, and can’t even guarantee a meeting. The art of the deal, indeed.
Putin will offer Trump access to Ukraine mineral resources…
Putin says Trump must go further before he’ll even agree to meet.
Putin is entirely in the driving seat. The US has alienated its own allies, given Russia nearly all of what it wanted, bought Putin’s warped view of reality, and can’t even guarantee a meeting. The art of the deal, indeed.
Putin will offer Trump access to Ukraine mineral resources…
Putin will have no intention of honouring whatever he offers.
max seddon @maxseddon · 1h Russia has been trying to play it cool, but Trump is moving to their side so fast they’re struggling to hold back the jubilation
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?
No, in the sense one cannot be called.
If the President and Vice President both died, leaving somebody else (currently the Speaker of the House would be next in line, although he could refuse the role) as Acting President, a special election could be held at the midterms, but it’s never happened.
There's absolutely no constitutional way to call a special election for POTUS at midterms that I know of.
Trump and Vance could both drop dead today, there wouldn't be a special election, the line of succession exists until the next election.
Yes, with the proviso -of course- that the Speaker of the House* could easily end up changing between now and the midterms, and will almost certainly change after them.
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?
No, in the sense one cannot be called.
If the President and Vice President both died, leaving somebody else (currently the Speaker of the House would be next in line, although he could refuse the role) as Acting President, a special election could be held at the midterms, but it’s never happened.
There's absolutely no constitutional way to call a special election for POTUS at midterms that I know of.
Trump and Vance could both drop dead today, there wouldn't be a special election, the line of succession exists until the next election.
Not quite correct. Article II says somebody shall ‘act as President until the disability be removed or a President be elected.’ It was specifically clarified in 1947 that this means Congress can hold a special election (‘If a statutory successor is serving as acting President, Congress may, but is not required to, call a new presidential election’). That would however be like a Senate special - it wouldn’t change the cycle of Presidential elections in leap and centennial years.
For the benefit of people above who appear not to have understood what I was saying, u do know about the 25th Amendment, thanks, I was talking about what happened if both the Presidency and Vice Presidency were vacant at once.
The 25th Amendment supersedes any 1947 clarification.
It is not possible for Congress to do anything with both the Presidency and Vice Presidency vacant at once, as the 25th ensures the Presidency is filled by whoever is next in the line of succession, which was not the case in 1947.
The 25th does no such thing. It simply clarifies the processes for replacing a President with a Vice President and filling a vacancy in the Vice Presidency.
The 1947 Act remains in force and if Vance and Trump were simultaneously wiped out by measles would come into effect.
It is less *likely* it would happen because the old system of years of vacancies in the No. 2 slot are now over. But the question was, is there provision for a special election, and the answer is yes.
max seddon @maxseddon · 1h Russia has been trying to play it cool, but Trump is moving to their side so fast they’re struggling to hold back the jubilation
Trump has been on their side since the start.
Just too many engaged in hopium thinking he would do the right thing.
When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
Putin says Trump must go further before he’ll even agree to meet.
Putin is entirely in the driving seat. The US has alienated its own allies, given Russia nearly all of what it wanted, bought Putin’s warped view of reality, and can’t even guarantee a meeting. The art of the deal, indeed.
Putin should ask Trump to bring cakes to the next meeting, purely to take the piss.
@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.
The only manned winged aircraft that can fly off the QE2-class carriers are F35Bs. If we lose them, we be stepmom'd.
IIUC The US holds the software to the F35 and provides us with mission parameters on request: we don't change the software or parameterise it, they do. Only the Israelis had the sense to tell them no and develop their own. Yes, we actually did a Battlestar Galactica mistake. Ooops.
I don't know if it's realistic to wrench control away by developing our own software: it's not doable by people or AI in the time available, so we'd have to black-box it and train a neural network to match the outputs for every possible input. This is not actually impossible if you do it for a finite set of inputs and interpolate - woo, being a statistician be fun!
Oh, incidentally, the F35 variants (A,B,C) are so popular they are virtually the right arm of the free world. Which is a bit of a bugger. Did I mention Battlestar Galactica?
Utterly f*****g ridiculous that some idiot/traitor signed a contract for a plane we can't fly without permission from a foreign country. I mean what the actual f***k? Did Keir Starmer do a career sabbatical in the MOD, or are they just all like that?
They didn’t. The comment is wrong. This is all public info and was big news at the time.
Putin says Trump must go further before he’ll even agree to meet.
Putin is entirely in the driving seat. The US has alienated its own allies, given Russia nearly all of what it wanted, bought Putin’s warped view of reality, and can’t even guarantee a meeting. The art of the deal, indeed.
Putin will offer Trump access to Ukraine mineral resources…
Putin will have no intention of honouring whatever he offers.
Neither will Trump.
Trump is pathetically desperate for Putin's approval, so who knows.
I cannot believe I am typing this, but perhaps it is time for the UK and France to step up and send troops to Ukraine.
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?
No, in the sense one cannot be called.
If the President and Vice President both died, leaving somebody else (currently the Speaker of the House would be next in line, although he could refuse the role) as Acting President, a special election could be held at the midterms, but it’s never happened.
There's absolutely no constitutional way to call a special election for POTUS at midterms that I know of.
Trump and Vance could both drop dead today, there wouldn't be a special election, the line of succession exists until the next election.
Yes, with the proviso -of course- that the Speaker of the House* could easily end up changing between now and the midterms, and will almost certainly change after 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.
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.
OK how many CEOs of S&P500 companies own over 10% of the company and are the biggest shareholder?
Also, coincidentally, how many CEOs have pay packages of a 100 billion USD?
You seemed to be defending promoting Tesla by implying it doesn't really support Musk. It does.
@ZelenskyyUa I spoke with UK Prime Minister @Keir_Starmer . The United Kingdom’s role in fortifying Europe’s defense and security is important for us.
We discussed upcoming plans and opportunities. UK’s support matters indeed, and we will never forget the respect the British people have shown for Ukraine and our citizens.
Thank you for your support.
That nearly brings me to tears . After watching the BBC documentary on Zelenskyy a while back I have absolutely the highest respect for him . A remarkable man .
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.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
When people look back at the period the thing that gets missed is the massive reluctance to fight another war. The leaders of Britain and France had served or had close relatives who had in the trenches. For the French in particular the Great War was catastrophic in terms of casualties. No one wanted that again.
So while invading Germany was probably the best and only way to end/win the war early, it is almost impossible to imagine the French actually doing it.
Putin says Trump must go further before he’ll even agree to meet.
Putin is entirely in the driving seat. The US has alienated its own allies, given Russia nearly all of what it wanted, bought Putin’s warped view of reality, and can’t even guarantee a meeting. The art of the deal, indeed.
Putin will offer Trump access to Ukraine mineral resources…
Putin will have no intention of honouring whatever he offers.
Neither will Trump.
"Anyway, there’s no way we could actually get the [mineral] money. If Ukraine were to lose, and Putin takes over, he wouldn’t honor the deal. If Ukraine were to survive, its populace would be even more enraged than the Germans after World War I, and they wouldn’t pay either."
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?
No, in the sense one cannot be called.
If the President and Vice President both died, leaving somebody else (currently the Speaker of the House would be next in line, although he could refuse the role) as Acting President, a special election could be held at the midterms, but it’s never happened.
There's absolutely no constitutional way to call a special election for POTUS at midterms that I know of.
Trump and Vance could both drop dead today, there wouldn't be a special election, the line of succession exists until the next election.
Yes, with the proviso -of course- that the Speaker of the House* could easily end up changing between now and the midterms, and will almost certainly change after them.
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.
Hitler was so effective in 1938 to 1940 because he split alliances, attacked individually and defeated in detail.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
When people look back at the period the thing that gets missed is the massive reluctance to fight another war. The leaders of Britain and France had served or had close relatives who had in the trenches. For the French in particular the Great War was catastrophic in terms of casualties. No one wanted that again.
So while invading Germany was probably the best and only way to end/win the war early, it is almost impossible to imagine the French actually doing it.
Essentially our war plan in 1939 was to rerun WW1. Halt the Germans with fortifications and blockade them into defeat. It was a very poor plan.
When the attacks come against Starmer, suggesting (as the Trump Stooge did on Newsnight last night) that the U.K. has more political prisoners than Russia, the Conservatives need to defend him.
The Trump administration has just told a federal judge in a court filing that it will not comply with the court's order to resume funding for USAID and State Department foreign assistance. https://x.com/BethanyAllenEbr/status/1892086856990237059
*As the Onion says, using the little known "no one will stop me" loophole.
@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%.
Worthless analysis.
There's no more capacity to build more ships in the UK.
Wessex went out of service in 2003.
Tempest won't be anything until 2040 (if ever) so if the need is as pressing as the Russophobe neurotics would have us believe then that has to go in the bin for more Typhoon.
If the government really wants to upgrade defence capability, it needs to start with a consideration of the people (not "men"). Work out what levels it can get to in each specialty at various levels of expenditure. Eg extra 5bn/year gets you another 20 FJ pilots, 100 sonar techs, etc. Then buy the amount of hardware commensurate to match the people. Starting with the hardware and working back is facile.
Comments
One thing we need to recover this is more loyalty to the country. Those "I would fight" numbers we have looked at.
Regular Army Personnel:
2010: Approximately 109,000 Regular Army personnel.
2020: Approximately 79,000 Regular Army personnel.
2024: Approximately 74,296 Regular Army personnel.
Army Reserve Personnel:
2010: Approximately 29,000 Army Reserve personnel.
2020: Approximately 30,000 Army Reserve personnel.
2024: Approximately 25,934 Army Reserve personnel.
Poland? Too close, probably not wanted.
USA? Not now.
Britain? Seems unlikely.
Israel? No. (It would be like sticking two fingers up at Russia.)
Somewhere with a big Ukrainian community that dates back to the 1940s? No. (I'll leave it to readers to work out the reasons.)
My guess would be the UAE.
First Czechoslovakia, then Poland, then Denmark and Norway, then the Low Countries then France and very nearly the UK.
The Dutch and Belgians didn't coordinate with the BEF or France until they were invaded. Could we have done better with a more unified command? If France had rapidly mobilised and attacked into Germany while Nazi forces were tied up in Czechoslovakia or Poland? Maybe, maybe not, but they could hardly have done worse.
The problem in the West is the desperate attempts to sex up basic hardware like this - air mobility and other nonsense.
We could buy 1,000 mobile artillery systems for £5 billion. Which would give us more artillery firepower than the entire Russian army, probably.
But that’s not sexy.
https://www.artofmanliness.com/living/food-drink/how-to-make-civil-war-era-hardtack/
And possibly the "The President's Brain is Missing" from 1980s Spitting Image.
Even the French (slowest OODA cycle possible) managed to coordinate well with the BEF - when they went being hammered…
So to counter that here's something I read on twitter.
This was a man who thought that the radio was evil.
We could have done much, much worse. We could have lost WWII. We could have had the "unified command" of forces led by a fascist-sympathiser or a fascist themselves.
Its funny how many seem to want diversity in everything but where its most needed and then "unity is strength". No diversity is strength.
No one individual should have autocratic power.
IIUC The US holds the software to the F35 and provides us with mission parameters on request: we don't change the software or parameterise it, they do. Only the Israelis had the sense to tell them no and develop their own. Yes, we actually did a Battlestar Galactica mistake. Ooops.
I don't know if it's realistic to wrench control away by developing our own software: it's not doable by people or AI in the time available, so we'd have to black-box it and train a neural network to match the outputs for every possible input. This is not actually impossible if you do it for a finite set of inputs and interpolate - woo, being a statistician be fun!
Oh, incidentally, the F35 variants (A,B,C) are so popular they are virtually the right arm of the free world. Which is a bit of a bugger. Did I mention Battlestar Galactica?
If anyone really really wants to trash-talk Putin, they could suggest that Russian intelligence-owned figures in Ukraine (military or civilian) may have been instrumental in continuing this war. Increasing military spending is one thing, but Russia has actually moved to a war economy. The difference means a lot to billionaires.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGSKrC7dGcY&t=1s
If the President and Vice President both died, leaving somebody else (currently the Speaker of the House would be next in line, although he could refuse the role) as Acting President, a special election could be held at the midterms, but it’s never happened.
We don't need 5th generation fighters, not unless we are fighting the Yanks.
However sympathetic you are to the populist cause, however “realist” on Ukraine, it is impossible to defend the head of the world’s most powerful nation putting out reckless semi-literate screeds like this[Trump Zelensky post]
https://nitter.poast.org/freddiesayers/status/1892294755536515308#m
The replies still include a lot totally on board the Trump train.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has spoken to Zelensky this evening, to express his support as "Ukraine's democratically elected leader", according to Downing Street.
Starmer told Zelensky it is "perfectly reasonable to suspend elections during war time as the UK did" during World War Two, the statement adds.
Downing Street says the PM also "reiterated his support for the US-led efforts to get a lasting peace in Ukraine that deterred Russia from any future aggression".
That's Starmer off the White House Christmas card list.
It's possible for Trump to favour a deal with Russia without needing to frame it as some act of treachery. It might even serve America's interests.
They are the only Navy other than the US to have a CATOBAR carrier, and they fly their own Dassault fighters off it.
In Ukraine they were sent in 2023 from USA stocks when normal munitions were in short supply, and were used against targets such as convoys and infantry concentrations - and made a big difference, especially from HIMARS. Russia has used them on civilian targets.
Everybody else (not USA) afaik has signed it and destroyed stocks. If the USA is going to cancel supplies, I think that removes the only supplier, other than pre-existing Ukraine stocks.
So I think there is - in the circumstances - a possible need to reconsider.
David
Ellen Milligan
@EllenAMilligan
·
3m
Key details of UK-France led 'reassurance force' to protect post-war Ukraine:
-<30k troops at ports, cities, infrastructure (not on border)
-Aircraft, forces in Romania/Poland, black sea patrols
-Close border surveillance
-Contingent on US airpower, intel
https://x.com/EllenAMilligan/status/1892317589709213881
It is better to be his enemy than his friend: at least he's circumspect with his enemies because he worries he might get hurt.
@AmbJohnBolton
·
3h
Trump’s characterizations of Zelensky and Ukraine are some of the most shameful remarks ever made by a US President. Our support of Ukraine has never been about charity, our way of life at home depends on our strength abroad.
https://x.com/AmbJohnBolton
Ford has the unique attribute of being the only POTUS who never won an election for POTUS or VPOTUS. He was appointed VP in 1973 after Agnew resigned, and appointed Rockefeller as new VP, so from 1974-76 neither had a democratic mandate.
@BillKristol
·
1h
Honestly, could Trump be doing any more damage to our national security if he were taking direct orders from Putin and Xi?
https://x.com/BillKristol
*with Norway
A problem arises if the last individual named in the line of succession, in this instance the Homeland Security Secretary, refuses or is unable to assume office. At that point the Congress and the “States Assembled” must decided on the next course of action.
Special elections are typically held only in legislative offices at both State and Federal level and are specifically defined.
Fuck him (Trump).
We will endure.
The idea that Ukraine has sought to prolong this war when they are the ones being invaded is preposterous. Putin does not need to be trash talked, he needs to be locked up for the rest of his life. Russia's economy is on an unsustainable path as shown by the decline in the Ruble. This war has been utterly ruinous for them and I hope it brings an end to Putin's murderous regime.
But thanks for asking.
E.g. if somebody feels the RoC and PRC will reunify peacefully by the end of the year, or that Trump will be impeached, convicted, and jailed, they might choose that.
Trump and Vance could both drop dead today, there wouldn't be a special election, the line of succession exists until the next election.
Ad hoc unification is much more dynamically better than institutionalised.
Trump is pissed at Zelensky for refusing the shakedown...
@JacquiHeinrich
National Security Adviser Mike Waltz says President Trump's relationship with Zelenskyy has soured over his refusal to sign the rare earth minerals deal the US has proposed:
WALTZ: "I think the frustration is really stemmed just in the in the last week from this bizarre pushback and escalation of rhetoric over presentation of what we see as an absolute opportunity. And that's to have the United States invest in Ukrainian infrastructure, to have them grow both their minerals, their natural resources, their oil and gas... We look at the type of aid the Europeans are providing, and it's often in the form of loans. It's being repaid with the interest on seized Russian assets. We believe the American taxpayer deserves to recoup much of their investment."
David Frum
@davidfrum
·
2h
Another Trump administration plane crash, this time in Arizona. Two dead.
I spoke with UK Prime Minister
@Keir_Starmer
. The United Kingdom’s role in fortifying Europe’s defense and security is important for us.
We discussed upcoming plans and opportunities. UK’s support matters indeed, and we will never forget the respect the British people have shown for Ukraine and our citizens.
Thank you for your support.
Zelensky is not a dictator. If he were, Trump would be treating him with much more respect.
For the benefit of people above who appear not to have understood what I was saying, I do know about the 25th Amendment, thanks, I was talking about what happened if both the Presidency and Vice Presidency were vacant at once.
Putin says Trump must go further before he’ll even agree to meet.
Putin is entirely in the driving seat. The US has alienated its own allies, given Russia nearly all of what it wanted, bought Putin’s warped view of reality, and can’t even guarantee a meeting. The art of the deal, indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6MqwUszTMw
One application I did not mention is against airfields - they can turn aircraft into colanders, which renders them effectively irreparable.
Also some missiles (eg ATACMS) have versions with cluster heads containing 1000 bomblets, for similar situations. Himars I think use what are effectively very big ball bearings, or small bomblets - depending on the target. The former would be for trenches or an HQ or soft vehicles, the latter for armour.
HIMARS and ATACMS and other systems have forced Russian HQs, Logistics and Anti-Air defences 10s of miles back from the frontline.
Here's a piccie of a ATACMS attack from a vid, showing them landing
From here:
https://x.com/JohnH105/status/1861053274608078873
And here's a piece with HIMARS cluster attack piccies (no human casualties shown).
https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/conflicts-in-the-world/ukraine-russia-conflict/ukrainian-himars-strike-hard-with-cluster-bombs-against-russian-troops
It is not possible for Congress to do anything with both the Presidency and Vice Presidency vacant at once, as the 25th ensures the Presidency is filled by whoever is next in the line of succession, which was not the case in 1947.
Neither will Trump.
@maxseddon
·
1h
Russia has been trying to play it cool, but Trump is moving to their side so fast they’re struggling to hold back the jubilation
* Third in line, I believe
The 1947 Act remains in force and if Vance and Trump were simultaneously wiped out by measles would come into effect.
It is less *likely* it would happen because the old system of years of vacancies in the No. 2 slot are now over. But the question was, is there provision for a special election, and the answer is yes.
Just too many engaged in hopium thinking he would do the right thing.
When someone tells you who they are, believe them.
All this talk of 4% of GDP on defence is for nothing unless we demonstrate a willingness to use it.
I cannot believe I am typing this, but perhaps it is time for the UK and France to step up and send troops to Ukraine.
Also, coincidentally, how many CEOs have pay packages of a 100 billion USD?
You seemed to be defending promoting Tesla by implying it doesn't really support Musk. It does.
So while invading Germany was probably the best and only way to end/win the war early, it is almost impossible to imagine the French actually doing it.
Paul Krugman
But I'm no longer certain of that.
The unemployment rate in London has risen to 6.1% - the highest in the country.
More than 350,000 Londoners are receiving unemployment benefits.
The Trump administration has just told a federal judge in a court filing that it will not comply with the court's order to resume funding for USAID and State Department foreign assistance.
https://x.com/BethanyAllenEbr/status/1892086856990237059
*As the Onion says, using the little known "no one will stop me" loophole.
Reader, Starmer is just about to get on a plane to Washington.
There's no more capacity to build more ships in the UK.
Wessex went out of service in 2003.
Tempest won't be anything until 2040 (if ever) so if the need is as pressing as the Russophobe neurotics would have us believe then that has to go in the bin for more Typhoon.
If the government really wants to upgrade defence capability, it needs to start with a consideration of the people (not "men"). Work out what levels it can get to in each specialty at various levels of expenditure. Eg extra 5bn/year gets you another 20 FJ pilots, 100 sonar techs, etc. Then buy the amount of hardware commensurate to match the people. Starting with the hardware and working back is facile.