@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.
You do know that it is possible for countries to start building ships? I mean, it may take a while, but it's not like it's some impossible skill that cannot be learned.
It'd be (at least) five years to build a shipyard and then (at least) ten years before you got something as complicated as a commissioned warship out of it. The Russians would be storming the beach at South Shields before then. The only way to get them quicker would be to build them in South Korea or similar which is politically impossible.
Could be worse. We could give the contract to Ferguson Marine.
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
He’s a master strategist, he’s got everyone off guard by a fake rough approach to get Canada and Greenland as extra US states to cover his real objective of making Russia the 51st state.
It’s next to the USA, huge natural resources, population who vote for who they are told to vote for, he’s really rope-a-doped Putin. This is the art of the deal in action.
US Conference of Catholic Bishops sues Trump over immigration, refugee funding freeze
Thank-you for that. It is under the Administrative Procedures Act, which is supposed to control how change happens in state agencies.
It looks the same as many of the others - they are initially trying to get due process to prevent facts Mr Trump / Mr Musk are trying to create on the ground by instant cancellation to make the legal process moot.
In wider political terms the impact would be, to an extent, to de-fang pace of change implementing changes by an unlawful process with no way of return as a weapon.
They may get a temporary injunction for a couple of weeks if the precipitate action can create 'irreparable damage' that makes the legal process essentially pointless.
Then the Court Decision will roll through.
That was aiui where Judge Chutkan turned down a temporary injunction on the one the other day, because she thought the instant damage would not be sufficient to require that instant measure in the broad scope of that lawsuit, and that the normal legal process would be quick enough to address it without an instant halt.
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
I think the word you're looking for is "cunt".
Is that a bit unfair and sullies the word, it’s a great word, can be very effectively wielded but to associate it with something so unpleasant isn’t nice.
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
I think the word you're looking for is "cunt".
Is that a bit unfair and sullies the word, it’s a great word, can be very effectively wielded but to associate it with something so unpleasant isn’t nice.
The Orange Golgothan is the best term I heard used, for Trump.
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
I think the word you're looking for is "cunt".
Is that a bit unfair and sullies the word, it’s a great word, can be very effectively wielded but to associate it with something so unpleasant isn’t nice.
You are correct.
There are many cunts -and I refer to people now, not ladies' bits- who have some characteristics that make them fallible, but ultimately human.
Donald Trump, by contrast, is a total fucking irredeemable cunt.
A man who has sold out tens of millions of innocent Ukrainians for nothing. And who has repeatedly lied about it.
I don't think I've despised and hated a living human being more than I currently hate Donald Trump. And I've met J-Lo.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
I think the word you're looking for is "cunt".
Is that a bit unfair and sullies the word, it’s a great word, can be very effectively wielded but to associate it with something so unpleasant isn’t nice.
You are correct.
There are many cunts -and I refer to people now, not ladies' bits- who have some characteristics that make them fallible, but ultimately human.
Donald Trump, by contrast, is a total fucking irredeemable cunt.
A man who has sold out tens of millions of innocent Ukrainians for nothing. And who has repeatedly lied about it.
I don't think I've despised and hated a living human being more than I currently hate Donald Trump. And I've met J-Lo.
@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.
You do know that it is possible for countries to start building ships? I mean, it may take a while, but it's not like it's some impossible skill that cannot be learned.
It'd be (at least) five years to build a shipyard and then (at least) ten years before you got something as complicated as a commissioned warship out of it. The Russians would be storming the beach at South Shields before then. The only way to get them quicker would be to build them in South Korea or similar which is politically impossible.
Could be worse. We could give the contract to Ferguson Marine.
If they have capacity or potential for capacity, it could suddenly be in demand.
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
I think the word you're looking for is "cunt".
Is that a bit unfair and sullies the word, it’s a great word, can be very effectively wielded but to associate it with something so unpleasant isn’t nice.
You are correct.
There are many cunts -and I refer to people now, not ladies' bits- who have some characteristics that make them fallible, but ultimately human.
Donald Trump, by contrast, is a total fucking irredeemable cunt.
A man who has sold out tens of millions of innocent Ukrainians for nothing. And who has repeatedly lied about it.
I don't think I've despised and hated a living human being more than I currently hate Donald Trump. And I've met J-Lo.
One small cloud, no bigger than a man's hand... I notice that there is a proposition approved for the November ballot in California for the state to secede from the United States.
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
I think the word you're looking for is "cunt".
Is that a bit unfair and sullies the word, it’s a great word, can be very effectively wielded but to associate it with something so unpleasant isn’t nice.
The Orange Golgothan is the best term I heard used, for Trump.
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
I think the word you're looking for is "cunt".
Is that a bit unfair and sullies the word, it’s a great word, can be very effectively wielded but to associate it with something so unpleasant isn’t nice.
You are correct.
There are many cunts -and I refer to people now, not ladies' bits- who have some characteristics that make them fallible, but ultimately human.
Donald Trump, by contrast, is a total fucking irredeemable cunt.
A man who has sold out tens of millions of innocent Ukrainians for nothing. And who has repeatedly lied about it.
I don't think I've despised and hated a living human being more than I currently hate Donald Trump. And I've met J-Lo.
Weirdly, as absolutely fucking disgraceful the sell-out of the Ukrainians and the hugging of Putin are, the bit I find most distasteful and shows the measure of him is this obsession with the mineral rights.
It is the absolute display of his obsession with wealth and grift. I don’t doubt at all that if it were to come to pass that there would be a % tax to his own pocket from each benefiting company.
@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.
You do know that it is possible for countries to start building ships? I mean, it may take a while, but it's not like it's some impossible skill that cannot be learned.
It'd be (at least) five years to build a shipyard and then (at least) ten years before you got something as complicated as a commissioned warship out of it. The Russians would be storming the beach at South Shields before then. The only way to get them quicker would be to build them in South Korea or similar which is politically impossible.
Could be worse. We could give the contract to Ferguson Marine.
If they have capacity or potential for capacity, it could suddenly be in demand.
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
I think the word you're looking for is "cunt".
Is that a bit unfair and sullies the word, it’s a great word, can be very effectively wielded but to associate it with something so unpleasant isn’t nice.
You are correct.
There are many cunts -and I refer to people now, not ladies' bits- who have some characteristics that make them fallible, but ultimately human.
Donald Trump, by contrast, is a total fucking irredeemable cunt.
A man who has sold out tens of millions of innocent Ukrainians for nothing. And who has repeatedly lied about it.
I don't think I've despised and hated a living human being more than I currently hate Donald Trump. And I've met J-Lo.
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
I think the word you're looking for is "cunt".
Is that a bit unfair and sullies the word, it’s a great word, can be very effectively wielded but to associate it with something so unpleasant isn’t nice.
You are correct.
There are many cunts -and I refer to people now, not ladies' bits- who have some characteristics that make them fallible, but ultimately human.
Donald Trump, by contrast, is a total fucking irredeemable cunt.
A man who has sold out tens of millions of innocent Ukrainians for nothing. And who has repeatedly lied about it.
I don't think I've despised and hated a living human being more than I currently hate Donald Trump. And I've met J-Lo.
Out of interest, what’s so bad about J-Lo?
You've never met her, have you? DM me.
I’ve met J-Lo (a while ago when she was young)
She has - or had - an absolutely magnificent arse. I agree that she outranks Trump in that department
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
I think the word you're looking for is "cunt".
Is that a bit unfair and sullies the word, it’s a great word, can be very effectively wielded but to associate it with something so unpleasant isn’t nice.
You are correct.
There are many cunts -and I refer to people now, not ladies' bits- who have some characteristics that make them fallible, but ultimately human.
Donald Trump, by contrast, is a total fucking irredeemable cunt.
A man who has sold out tens of millions of innocent Ukrainians for nothing. And who has repeatedly lied about it.
I don't think I've despised and hated a living human being more than I currently hate Donald Trump. And I've met J-Lo.
Out of interest, what’s so bad about J-Lo?
You've never met her, have you? DM me.
I’ve met J-Lo (a while ago when she was young)
She has - or had - an absolutely magnificent arse. I agree that she outranks Trump in that department
Christ, Justin Webb desperately trying to get Lisa Nandy to slag off Trump - Justin you prick, what benefit to anyone is there to give that thin skinned orange clown another reason to sound off when we need to try and fix this. I’m sorry you won’t get your headline and as much as I enjoy seeing Labour ministers squirm, just leave it.
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
I think the word you're looking for is "cunt".
Is that a bit unfair and sullies the word, it’s a great word, can be very effectively wielded but to associate it with something so unpleasant isn’t nice.
You are correct.
There are many cunts -and I refer to people now, not ladies' bits- who have some characteristics that make them fallible, but ultimately human.
Donald Trump, by contrast, is a total fucking irredeemable cunt.
A man who has sold out tens of millions of innocent Ukrainians for nothing. And who has repeatedly lied about it.
I don't think I've despised and hated a living human being more than I currently hate Donald Trump. And I've met J-Lo.
Out of interest, what’s so bad about J-Lo?
You've never met her, have you? DM me.
I’ve met J-Lo (a while ago when she was young)
She has - or had - an absolutely magnificent arse. I agree that she outranks Trump in that department
I'm intrigued by @Leon's idea that we somehow 'mishandled' Russia.
The thing is with statecraft - and we are seeing this currently with Trump - you can only deal with faithfully with countries that want to act faithfully. If they do not want to act faithfully - if they want to break treaties, lie, distort, attack - then dealing with them is exceptionally difficult. Witness Russia, North Korea, Iran etc.
We did a heck of a lot in the nineties to stop Russia imploding, and gave them a heck of a lot of help and money. The cooperation on the ISS being just one small example. But Putin is not a faithful actor, and he would have bent whatever we did to further his own aims.
He wants Russia to be a superpower and have control over all of Eastern Europe. That's his dream. And anything we did would have been used by him to further than aim.
Having said that, I'm of the view that if we had been stronger against Russia after Georgia in 2008; after Crimea and Donbass in 2014; after Salisbury in ?2018?; then we might have stifled his ambitions by denting the Russian economy - e.g. by stopping purchases of Russian gas and oil. But his ambition would still have been there, and he would have looked for ways to achieve them. Would increased sanctions have dented the Russian economy enough to stop such adventures?
Christ, Justin Webb desperately trying to get Lisa Nandy to slag off Trump - Justin you prick, what benefit to anyone is there to give that thin skinned orange clown another reason to sound off when we need to try and fix this. I’m sorry you won’t get your headline and as much as I enjoy seeing Labour ministers squirm, just leave it.
The BBC should get all the right wing shrills who have praised Trump on the air.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
I'm intrigued by @Leon's idea that we somehow 'mishandled' Russia.
The thing is with statecraft - and we are seeing this currently with Trump - you can only deal with faithfully with countries that want to act faithfully. If they do not want to act faithfully - if they want to break treaties, lie, distort, attack - then dealing with them is exceptionally difficult. Witness Russia, North Korea, Iran etc.
We did a heck of a lot in the nineties to stop Russia imploding, and gave them a heck of a lot of help and money.
“We” - which was mostly right-wing American economists and economics majors - with a few European cheerleaders - also gave them some truly terrible advice and guidance. The rapid ham-fisted privatisation of their state owned assets and enterprises, without any regard to the institutional and political preconditions that are essential for an open market economy to take root, was suicidal, and led directly to the criminal oligarchy that ordinary Russians now suffer. ‘The future is history’ by Geshen is a tragic tale of how it all fell apart.
I'm intrigued by @Leon's idea that we somehow 'mishandled' Russia.
The thing is with statecraft - and we are seeing this currently with Trump - you can only deal with faithfully with countries that want to act faithfully. If they do not want to act faithfully - if they want to break treaties, lie, distort, attack - then dealing with them is exceptionally difficult. Witness Russia, North Korea, Iran etc.
We did a heck of a lot in the nineties to stop Russia imploding, and gave them a heck of a lot of help and money. The cooperation on the ISS being just one small example. But Putin is not a faithful actor, and he would have bent whatever we did to further his own aims.
He wants Russia to be a superpower and have control over all of Eastern Europe. That's his dream. And anything we did would have been used by him to further than aim.
Having said that, I'm of the view that if we had been stronger against Russia after Georgia in 2008; after Crimea and Donbass in 2014; after Salisbury in ?2018?; then we might have stifled his ambitions by denting the Russian economy - e.g. by stopping purchases of Russian gas and oil. But his ambition would still have been there, and he would have looked for ways to achieve them. Would increased sanctions have dented the Russian economy enough to stop such adventures?
Of course the west has mishandled Russia, or do you think the current situation is the best possible?
Sanctions schmanctions. Without Obama we would have had the much better President Hillary Clinton, who would have enforced a no-fly zone over Syria and shot down a couple of Russian warplanes. That would have given Putin something to think about.
But the West has been utterly incoherent. It would have been better if the West just left Ukraine in Russia's sphere of influence until the West was capable of properly standing up to Putin.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
We didn’t see that some in Russia were in a similar mental state to some Germany in 1918. Defeated, humiliated and planning revenge. We were too busy celebrating our victory. That was an error.
But that doesn’t excuse Putin, Trump or their minions
I'm intrigued by @Leon's idea that we somehow 'mishandled' Russia.
The thing is with statecraft - and we are seeing this currently with Trump - you can only deal with faithfully with countries that want to act faithfully. If they do not want to act faithfully - if they want to break treaties, lie, distort, attack - then dealing with them is exceptionally difficult. Witness Russia, North Korea, Iran etc.
We did a heck of a lot in the nineties to stop Russia imploding, and gave them a heck of a lot of help and money.
“We” - which was mostly right-wing American economists and economics majors - with a few European cheerleaders - also gave them some truly terrible advice and guidance. The rapid ham-fisted privatisation of their state owned assets and enterprises, without any regard to the institutional and political preconditions that are essential for an open market economy to take root, was suicidal, and led directly to the criminal oligarchy that ordinary Russians now suffer. ‘The future is history’ by Geshen is a tragic tale of how it all fell apart.
A criminal oligarchy that the Americans are now keen to copy...
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
I think the word you're looking for is "cunt".
Is that a bit unfair and sullies the word, it’s a great word, can be very effectively wielded but to associate it with something so unpleasant isn’t nice.
You are correct.
There are many cunts -and I refer to people now, not ladies' bits- who have some characteristics that make them fallible, but ultimately human.
Donald Trump, by contrast, is a total fucking irredeemable cunt.
A man who has sold out tens of millions of innocent Ukrainians for nothing. And who has repeatedly lied about it.
I don't think I've despised and hated a living human being more than I currently hate Donald Trump. And I've met J-Lo.
I'm intrigued by @Leon's idea that we somehow 'mishandled' Russia.
The thing is with statecraft - and we are seeing this currently with Trump - you can only deal with faithfully with countries that want to act faithfully. If they do not want to act faithfully - if they want to break treaties, lie, distort, attack - then dealing with them is exceptionally difficult. Witness Russia, North Korea, Iran etc.
We did a heck of a lot in the nineties to stop Russia imploding, and gave them a heck of a lot of help and money. The cooperation on the ISS being just one small example. But Putin is not a faithful actor, and he would have bent whatever we did to further his own aims.
He wants Russia to be a superpower and have control over all of Eastern Europe. That's his dream. And anything we did would have been used by him to further than aim.
Having said that, I'm of the view that if we had been stronger against Russia after Georgia in 2008; after Crimea and Donbass in 2014; after Salisbury in ?2018?; then we might have stifled his ambitions by denting the Russian economy - e.g. by stopping purchases of Russian gas and oil. But his ambition would still have been there, and he would have looked for ways to achieve them. Would increased sanctions have dented the Russian economy enough to stop such adventures?
Of course the west has mishandled Russia, or do you think the current situation is the best possible?
Sanctions schmanctions. Without Obama we would have had the much better President Hillary Clinton, who would have enforced a no-fly zone over Syria and shot down a couple of Russian warplanes. That would have given Putin something to think about.
But the West has been utterly incoherent. It would have been better if the West just left Ukraine in Russia's sphere of influence until the West was capable of properly standing up to Putin.
My point is that Putin has set aims. Whatever we did, and however we reacted, would have been used by him to further that aim. Perhaps we could have dissuaded him; but it seems that he's fairly well set in that view, and has been since 2008 at least.
I remember someone (I think on here...) in 2022 blaming the Ukraine invasion on the sanctions put on Russia over earlier misdeeds. A laughable viewpoint, but a sign that *anything* the west did would be used as excuses for Putin's acts.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
We didn’t see that some in Russia were in a similar mental state to some Germany in 1918. Defeated, humiliated and planning revenge. We were too busy celebrating our victory. That was an error.
But that doesn’t excuse Putin, Trump or their minions
I don't think we 'celebrated' our victory. I think some of the now-free states celebrated freedom, albeit a difficult freedom. I think the main feeling in the west was one of relief that the risk of all-out war was over.
I'm intrigued by @Leon's idea that we somehow 'mishandled' Russia.
The thing is with statecraft - and we are seeing this currently with Trump - you can only deal with faithfully with countries that want to act faithfully. If they do not want to act faithfully - if they want to break treaties, lie, distort, attack - then dealing with them is exceptionally difficult. Witness Russia, North Korea, Iran etc.
We did a heck of a lot in the nineties to stop Russia imploding, and gave them a heck of a lot of help and money. The cooperation on the ISS being just one small example. But Putin is not a faithful actor, and he would have bent whatever we did to further his own aims.
He wants Russia to be a superpower and have control over all of Eastern Europe. That's his dream. And anything we did would have been used by him to further than aim.
Having said that, I'm of the view that if we had been stronger against Russia after Georgia in 2008; after Crimea and Donbass in 2014; after Salisbury in ?2018?; then we might have stifled his ambitions by denting the Russian economy - e.g. by stopping purchases of Russian gas and oil. But his ambition would still have been there, and he would have looked for ways to achieve them. Would increased sanctions have dented the Russian economy enough to stop such adventures?
Of course the west has mishandled Russia, or do you think the current situation is the best possible?
Sanctions schmanctions. Without Obama we would have had the much better President Hillary Clinton, who would have enforced a no-fly zone over Syria and shot down a couple of Russian warplanes. That would have given Putin something to think about.
But the West has been utterly incoherent. It would have been better if the West just left Ukraine in Russia's sphere of influence until the West was capable of properly standing up to Putin.
My point is that Putin has set aims. Whatever we did, and however we reacted, would have been used by him to further that aim. Perhaps we could have dissuaded him; but it seems that he's fairly well set in that view, and has been since 2008 at least.
I remember someone (I think on here...) in 2022 blaming the Ukraine invasion on the sanctions put on Russia over earlier misdeeds. A laughable viewpoint, but a sign that *anything* the west did would be used as excuses for Putin's acts.
I'm curious as to the details of the mechanism for all this.
Are they actually made redundant with redundancy pay and then have to be recruited again - wouldn't the worker demand a bonus just for re-joining ? After all they might have lost employment rights from being classed now as a new starter.
Or are workers merely being sent home on risk of redundancy, the risk being rapidly ended.
RIF is far more brutal and quick than the UK concept of being “at risk”
I genuinely wish there were principled politicians who actually believed in States rights.
The congestion charge is popular in New York, where it has successfully got the traffic moving. Why Trump feels the need to overrule local democracy is beyond me.
Presumably because he doesn’t bother to pay and the fines just rack up
I dunno if the UK government will have much appetite for state directed shipyard schemes after the recent H&W debacle in the 6 counties. That ended up with the Spanish government via Navantia owning the yard (and others) with construction of the RFA's FSS ships still not started despite the project running for 10 years.
You haven't a clue what you're talking about, despite throwing out cod-military acronyms and locker-room insults on here like they're going out of fashion.
BAE Systems are already expanding their shipyards at Barrow and on the Clyde to "scale up" even now, and RR are about to do the same at Raynesway. Manufacture of the fleet I've outlined is easily credible, provided the infrastructure is put in place over the next 7-8 years.
As always, your view is simply driven by a desire to keep Britain down, out and in its place so it's not a challenge to your friends.
@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.
You do know that it is possible for countries to start building ships? I mean, it may take a while, but it's not like it's some impossible skill that cannot be learned.
It'd be (at least) five years to build a shipyard and then (at least) ten years before you got something as complicated as a commissioned warship out of it. The Russians would be storming the beach at South Shields before then. The only way to get them quicker would be to build them in South Korea or similar which is politically impossible.
@Dura_Ace is right here wrt naval - it's the short term, and especially the near short term that matters for now.
There is opportunity to speed things up and extend existing order pipelines, but then we need:
- The workforce to for example put on an extra shift. - The supply chain speeding up likewise. - The crew and support. - New ships can go out with some kit not fitted yet. We have a separate issue around bring existing ships up to scratch - we have tended to do that to spin out budgets. That all now needs to be caught up.
Things like sea trials can be accelerated, with associated risks.
As I mentioned last night we have frigates in latish stages of build and fit out. There'll be one Type 31 and one Type 26, and the last two Astute subs, they should be trying to pull forward into commissioning in the next 6-12 months via panic-speed up, which may be happening already (I hope) *. Then it's down to speeding up what is in the pipeline (more than you might expect - about 1 per year) and ordering more on the end.
If this is going hot vs Russia, we perhaps need a phoney war of sorts, and not an instant peace process.
Most of this imo is down to the Osborne / Cameron cuts in defence from 2.5% to 2% of GDP from 2010 to 2012-ish, and a starvation diet since. Some may be down to actions by late Blair-Brown - not sure. We have stabilised in measure which we should recognise, but have not covered the gap. Recruitment and training were particularly badly f*cked up (also pilots), and are only on maybe on the way to being sorted.
There are lots of choke-points, perhaps most obviously Rolls-Royce, who do engines for basically everything naval.
Then there is the vulnerability of the shipyards to eg ballistic missile attacks using conventional warheads, or attacks from adjacent sea areas.
I don't know how much prep or even scenario planning has been done for a possible conflict or withdrawal of US support by Mr Trump. We successfully spotted the Russian invasion coming in advance in measure (USA/UK intelligence briefings leading to emergency supply of NLAWS etc mandated by BoJo, to the extent of waking up Ukraine more than they were already).
But we also had BoJo lying his head off about everything ("minimum 24 escorts"), and the Tories turning into the headless chicken party in the run up to 2024.
@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.
The only worthless analysis is your own.
Mine is spot on. I literally started with a consideration of the manpower (I will keep using this term, as will almost everyone else, as we don't share your passo-wokery) for the army to deploy a warfighting division. The ships are the level for a credible bluewater navy that can defend our interests worldwide, calibrated against the 1998SDR, and updated for today's world, and the same for the RAF. It's absolutely the right analysis and absolutely what we need, and rightly so.
You just don't like anybody else talking about defence but you. Same with cars, bikes and aircraft.
You are a very boring man. As well as a wrong one.
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
I think the word you're looking for is "cunt".
Is that a bit unfair and sullies the word, it’s a great word, can be very effectively wielded but to associate it with something so unpleasant isn’t nice.
You are correct.
There are many cunts -and I refer to people now, not ladies' bits- who have some characteristics that make them fallible, but ultimately human.
Donald Trump, by contrast, is a total fucking irredeemable cunt.
A man who has sold out tens of millions of innocent Ukrainians for nothing. And who has repeatedly lied about it.
I don't think I've despised and hated a living human being more than I currently hate Donald Trump. And I've met J-Lo.
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
I think the word you're looking for is "cunt".
Is that a bit unfair and sullies the word, it’s a great word, can be very effectively wielded but to associate it with something so unpleasant isn’t nice.
The Orange Golgothan is the best term I heard used, for Trump.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
That’s not correct
The assurance was that there would be no NATO troops on *former GDR territory while Soviet troops were still there*. That’s why the commitment could be made by Kohl and no one else.
At the time the promise was made the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union still existed - why on earth would the USSR ask for a commitment that NATO wasn’t going to station troops on Warsaw Pact territory? The idea was literally inconceivable to them because it presupposes that the USSR would lose all of Eastern Europe
I genuinely wish there were principled politicians who actually believed in States rights.
The congestion charge is popular in New York, where it has successfully got the traffic moving. Why Trump feels the need to overrule local democracy is beyond me.
Presumably because he doesn’t bother to pay and the fines just rack up
Non-enforcement and Non-payment in New York is endemic, especially amongst the NPYD it seems.
As an aside, Trump's position on Ukraine will not be welcomed by Victoria Spartz.
She left the RNC over her party's views on Ukraine, but voted to confirm Johnson for the Speakership.
If she flips into outright opposition, that shrinks the House majority to just 2*, ahead of the Special Election in New York's 21st Congressional District. If the Republicans win it, they take their lead back up to 3... but if they lose it, then it drops to just a single vote.
That's one autoerotic asphyxiation from a tied House.
Here's someone else not too happy:
Putin started this war. Putin committed war crimes. Putin is the dictator who murdered his opponents. The EU nations have contributed more to Ukraine. Zelensky polls over 50%. Ukraine wants to be part of the West, Putin hates the West. I don’t accept George Orwell’s doublethink.
Zelensky absolutely does not poll over 50%. According to Svetlana Morenitz (Ukrainian journalist on the speccie) he polls 16% but would still be the favourite because everyone else in the running polls less.
Trump has told outrageous porkies but those critiquing him for it should check their facts too.
New: Elon Musk expresses interest in idea of sending ‘DOGE dividend’ checks to Americans, saying he “will check with the president.” The proposal from @j_fishback involves returning 20% of the cost savings from DOGE efforts back to American tax payers in form of $5,000 rebates.
Comments
lol
He’s the definition of a lovable rogue. You can’t help liking him
Leftwing activists less likely to work with political rivals than other UK groups, study finds
Exclusive: Lack of understanding by ‘progressive activists’ of other voting blocs has led to rise of far right, authors argue
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/19/leftwing-activists-less-likely-work-political-rivals-other-uk-groups-study
It’s next to the USA, huge natural resources, population who vote for who they are told to vote for, he’s really rope-a-doped Putin. This is the art of the deal in action.
It looks the same as many of the others - they are initially trying to get due process to prevent facts Mr Trump / Mr Musk are trying to create on the ground by instant cancellation to make the legal process moot.
In wider political terms the impact would be, to an extent, to de-fang pace of change implementing changes by an unlawful process with no way of return as a weapon.
They may get a temporary injunction for a couple of weeks if the precipitate action can create 'irreparable damage' that makes the legal process essentially pointless.
Then the Court Decision will roll through.
That was aiui where Judge Chutkan turned down a temporary injunction on the one the other day, because she thought the instant damage would not be sufficient to require that instant measure in the broad scope of that lawsuit, and that the normal legal process would be quick enough to address it without an instant halt.
There's a bit more detail in the Press Release.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-conference-catholic-bishops-sues-trump-over-immigration-refugee-funding-freeze
This one may get a reaction from JD Vance, who has clashed with the USCCB before.
The Golgothan is a demon made from excrement.
There are many cunts -and I refer to people now, not ladies' bits- who have some characteristics that make them fallible, but ultimately human.
Donald Trump, by contrast, is a total fucking irredeemable cunt.
A man who has sold out tens of millions of innocent Ukrainians for nothing. And who has repeatedly lied about it.
I don't think I've despised and hated a living human being more than I currently hate Donald Trump. And I've met J-Lo.
He’s like the Just William of geopolitics. Or a Bart Simpson. Yes sometimes a bit annoying but fundamentally funny and warm
“Oops, he’s given away Ukraine!”
It tests your patience but then soon enough you warm to his cheek, once again. I can see why @cicero and @Sean_F are such fans
R is for Reform
R is for Russia
"Trump is 78. The 7 is silent".
It is the absolute display of his obsession with wealth and grift. I don’t doubt at all that if it were to come to pass that there would be a % tax to his own pocket from each benefiting company.
She has - or had - an absolutely magnificent arse. I agree that she outranks Trump in that department
The thing is with statecraft - and we are seeing this currently with Trump - you can only deal with faithfully with countries that want to act faithfully. If they do not want to act faithfully - if they want to break treaties, lie, distort, attack - then dealing with them is exceptionally difficult. Witness Russia, North Korea, Iran etc.
We did a heck of a lot in the nineties to stop Russia imploding, and gave them a heck of a lot of help and money. The cooperation on the ISS being just one small example. But Putin is not a faithful actor, and he would have bent whatever we did to further his own aims.
He wants Russia to be a superpower and have control over all of Eastern Europe. That's his dream. And anything we did would have been used by him to further than aim.
Having said that, I'm of the view that if we had been stronger against Russia after Georgia in 2008; after Crimea and Donbass in 2014; after Salisbury in ?2018?; then we might have stifled his ambitions by denting the Russian economy - e.g. by stopping purchases of Russian gas and oil. But his ambition would still have been there, and he would have looked for ways to achieve them. Would increased sanctions have dented the Russian economy enough to stop such adventures?
Lucky for him he's a King
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Wear better suits and ties.
Post on PB on a Saturday morning.
NEW THREAD
This isn’t a negotiation it’s a surrender .
Sanctions schmanctions. Without Obama we would have had the much better President Hillary Clinton, who would have enforced a no-fly zone over Syria and shot down a couple of Russian warplanes. That would have given Putin something to think about.
But the West has been utterly incoherent. It would have been better if the West just left Ukraine in Russia's sphere of influence until the West was capable of properly standing up to Putin.
But that doesn’t excuse Putin, Trump or their minions
I remember someone (I think on here...) in 2022 blaming the Ukraine invasion on the sanctions put on Russia over earlier misdeeds. A laughable viewpoint, but a sign that *anything* the west did would be used as excuses for Putin's acts.
BAE Systems are already expanding their shipyards at Barrow and on the Clyde to "scale up" even now, and RR are about to do the same at Raynesway. Manufacture of the fleet I've outlined is easily credible, provided the infrastructure is put in place over the next 7-8 years.
As always, your view is simply driven by a desire to keep Britain down, out and in its place so it's not a challenge to your friends.
He's a nutcase and a psychopath.
Mine is spot on. I literally started with a consideration of the manpower (I will keep using this term, as will almost everyone else, as we don't share your passo-wokery) for the army to deploy a warfighting division. The ships are the level for a credible bluewater navy that can defend our interests worldwide, calibrated against the 1998SDR, and updated for today's world, and the same for the RAF. It's absolutely the right analysis and absolutely what we need, and rightly so.
You just don't like anybody else talking about defence but you. Same with cars, bikes and aircraft.
You are a very boring man. As well as a wrong one.
The assurance was that there would be no NATO troops on *former GDR territory while Soviet troops were still there*. That’s why the commitment could be made by Kohl and no one else.
At the time the promise was made the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union still existed - why on earth would the USSR ask for a commitment that NATO wasn’t going to station troops on Warsaw Pact territory? The idea was literally inconceivable to them because it presupposes that the USSR would lose all of Eastern Europe
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconceptions-debate-russia/myth-03-russia-was-promised-nato-would-not-enlarge
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2024/10/29/study-exposes-nypds-systemic-failure-to-enforce-safety-related-parking-violations
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/03/13/recklessly-driving-cop-got-41-speeding-and-red-light-tickets
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/01/25/the-end-of-criminal-mischief-an-activist-reflects-on-three-months-of-field-work
Perhaps there is an effective mechanism on this one, and they resent it.
Trump has told outrageous porkies but those critiquing him for it should check their facts too.
New: Elon Musk expresses interest in idea of sending ‘DOGE dividend’ checks to Americans, saying he “will check with the president.” The proposal from @j_fishback involves returning 20% of the cost savings from DOGE efforts back to American tax payers in form of $5,000 rebates.
They could call it unemployment benefit.