Yes as the figures show supporting Trump gives Reform a ceiling of about 22%. While that would see Reform seat gains it is well short of the 28% they need for most seats and the 30%+ for a majority
With foreign affairs at the top of the agenda is Priti Patel value at 22-1 for next Con leader? Badenoch looks unlikely to make a recovery and seems to be avoiding the issue of the day.
No, she was last in the MPs vote. If Kemi went Stride or Philip would likely replace her
Marco Rubio: “For years to come, there are many people on the right…that are going to be having to explain and justify how they fell into this trap of supporting Donald Trump because this is not going to end well.” (2016)
This is why I could never be a politician, or diplomat, or really any job where you have to keep your opinions to yourself. I wouldn't even be able to bite my tongue, I'd be saying "I warned you all. I was right all along!"
At university I seriously considered becoming a diplomat because with my skills and talents I would have become an ambassador and I really wanted the title of Your Excellency, I also wanted the GCMG (God Call Me God).
Then I realised I could earn more in the private sector.
He’s a shill paid by the left to advance “pro migration” causes
Which might well be good - or not - but the idea he is some “good connector” is insane. You guys are gonna end up locked in a room agreeing with each other until you end up gouging out your own tiny eyes with boredom
Mmm. No - it sums up Sunder Katwala, and you sum up the image you are projecting on the inside of your head.
SK is notable in that he engages with different views, and posts a lot of info interesting to all.
If you know of a Centre-Right or Right analog, I'll add it to the Starter Pack.
The best candidate I have so far is probably Mark Wallace of Total Politics.
The Trump psychology is interesting. It's almost as if he wants to live up to the worst possible caricature of himself.
Why?
A psychosexual obsession with strong-man father figures?
Amplification of his worst tendencies by social media? (We definitely see this with Musk & Trump is probably equally affected.)
Dementia reducing his frontal lobe capacity, resulting in short term id-driven decision making?
All of the above?
Certainly it seems that those who went round liberally accusing others of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” ought to be asking themselves some searching questions.
Nothing to do with the Biden administration increasing the money supply before leaving office, of course ?
I have no doubt at all Trumps policies are stupid and inflationary but current levels of inflation, down to Trump. No. He will have to own it if inflation keeps rising. He cannot dodge that.
The Trump psychology is interesting. It's almost as if he wants to live up to the worst possible caricature of himself.
Why?
The caricature is pretty accurate, and the "it's a front/act/negotiating ploy" theory was 90% hopium?
It never ceases to astound me when people of all political persuasions seem shocked and surprised when politicians do exactly what they say they are going to do.
My fear with season two of the Trump show is that the season finale involves pushing a big red button. I do not put that beyond his ego, he will want to be “the one” and to go out with a bang. I can’t see any restraining forces.
The Trump psychology is interesting. It's almost as if he wants to live up to the worst possible caricature of himself.
Why?
Trump likes that he’s above the law, unbound and free to do whatever he wants. The more outrageous he gets , the more that perception is strengthened.
There's a sizable excitable audience on social media that swoons over that kind of stuff, and tells Trump that it and he is great. We don't have vulgar, low rent peple like that on PB of course.
If our national politics suddenly gets overtaken by critical matters of national security and European relations, the Tories could really do with a steady hand at the tiller. I fear Badenoch, if she continues her current trajectory, is going to look increasingly lightweight and unserious.
Of the candidates out there, it’s very slim pickings but characters like Hunt, Tugendhat (even though he didn’t impress in the leadership contest), maybe Stride at a pinch, might be the order of the day. I’d put Patel on that list as she seems to be reinventing herself as some kind of elder stateswoman figure in the Tory Party, but she doesn’t have the best record when it comes to foreign policy.
My fear with season two of the Trump show is that the season finale involves pushing a big red button. I do not put that beyond his ego, he will want to be “the one” and to go out with a bang. I can’t see any restraining forces.
That’s one thing I’m less worried about. He’s in real estate. Irradiating land does nothing for its value.
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
You need the traditional full English. Works wonders.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
If you are going that road, you need a pint of Guinness with it. 6am at Smithfield market…
Smithfield is now shut. And along with it that entire unique pub culture
Not been the same since the sorting office closed in the 90s. The combination of the large sorting office, large hopsital, both working 24 hours, plus the early morning meat market made that corner of London unique.
True but Leon’s statement is wrong - Smithfield is still open until 2028 albeit slightly less busy than it used to be
A lot less busy. It’s a shadow of its former self and has been declining for many years. I used to cycle from my flat in Angel to the office in Westminster down St John’s Street and through the market. Wasn’t a proper day if I didn’t nearly crash into a frozen cow carcass and be shouted at by an incensed trader.
I later (‘08-‘12) worked off St John’s Street near the market and it was visibly declining in business.
I'm pretty sure The Fox & Anchor is the only early house left, and opens 7am.
When I worked nearby some 35 years ago you had a choice of at least 1/2 a dozen.
The plan to relocate to Dagenham has been canned after wasting about £300m
I suspect it will close in 2028 but hope it survives somehow.
How many fishmongers & butchers are there where you live ?
In my city there were at least 20 fishmongers until the 1950's - there are 2 left, both run by people in their 60's or 70's
Martin Samuel of the Times is a good read as his Dad and Grandad worked there.
Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILD https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
Why do the Yanks need to talk to the Russians about that?
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.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
That’s a very selective wording of a question.
I don't see what the problem is, but go ahead and put the question in a way you're happy with. It's just a matter of historical record.
The Trump psychology is interesting. It's almost as if he wants to live up to the worst possible caricature of himself.
Why?
The caricature is pretty accurate, and the "it's a front/act/negotiating ploy" theory was 90% hopium?
It never ceases to astound me when people of all political persuasions seem shocked and surprised when politicians do exactly what they say they are going to do.
They are used to the modern style of politics - where politicians say they are left and right. Then implement the identical, managerial policies.
As Tony Blair put it, it’s an argument about the state spending over a range of 5% of GDP. The stuff the money is spent on doesn’t vary.
Then surprise when people start thinking - “Why bother to vote, they are all just the same”.
The Trump psychology is interesting. It's almost as if he wants to live up to the worst possible caricature of himself.
Why?
The caricature is pretty accurate, and the "it's a front/act/negotiating ploy" theory was 90% hopium?
It never ceases to astound me when people of all political persuasions seem shocked and surprised when politicians do exactly what they say they are going to do.
There is the corollary that people are shocked and surprised when politicians don't do exactly what they said they were going to do before an election. I can even think of a recent example.
Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILD https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
How does that fit with Hegseth's lavish praise of Poland the other day, where the US presence was recently increasing?
My fear with season two of the Trump show is that the season finale involves pushing a big red button. I do not put that beyond his ego, he will want to be “the one” and to go out with a bang. I can’t see any restraining forces.
My fear with season two of the Trump show is that the season finale involves pushing a big red button. I do not put that beyond his ego, he will want to be “the one” and to go out with a bang. I can’t see any restraining forces.
I think it’s much less likely in the short term, actually.
In the longer term, the chances of this all ending like Threads has increased. Trump’s sellout in Ukraine means a heightened risk of nuclear proliferation (they’ll be the new cool toy to avoid invasion) and the more states hold them the more trigger happy people might get, particularly if they don’t have the US looking over their shoulder.
It seems incredibly likely to me that the EU will formally come under the UK/French nuclear umbrella in the coming years, and I expect covert work on a Ukrainian nuclear program to start pretty much on day one post-deal.
We shouldn’t scare ourselves over what remains a small risk, but the world is going to get more dangerous.
The Trump psychology is interesting. It's almost as if he wants to live up to the worst possible caricature of himself.
Why?
The caricature is pretty accurate, and the "it's a front/act/negotiating ploy" theory was 90% hopium?
It never ceases to astound me when people of all political persuasions seem shocked and surprised when politicians do exactly what they say they are going to do.
It maybe should be even more astounding when people claim politicians are only pretending when they do exactly what they said they were going to do.
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
You need the traditional full English. Works wonders.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
If you are going that road, you need a pint of Guinness with it. 6am at Smithfield market…
Smithfield is now shut. And along with it that entire unique pub culture
Not been the same since the sorting office closed in the 90s. The combination of the large sorting office, large hopsital, both working 24 hours, plus the early morning meat market made that corner of London unique.
Indeed - although its rare anyone mourns a sorting office closing or half closing.
What do you do when letter volumes decline from 20bn a year in 2005 to roughly 6bn now (and decline is still10% a year) ?
Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILD https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
How does that fit with Hegseth's lavish praise of Poland the other day, where the US presence was recently increasing?
Surely everyone can see that Poland is historically part of Russia already?
The Trump psychology is interesting. It's almost as if he wants to live up to the worst possible caricature of himself.
Why?
The caricature is pretty accurate, and the "it's a front/act/negotiating ploy" theory was 90% hopium?
It never ceases to astound me when people of all political persuasions seem shocked and surprised when politicians do exactly what they say they are going to do.
We’re not used to our politicians doing that, and assume other countries’ politicians are the same as ours.
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.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
The only question here is, so what if NATO is pushing eastward? How does that justify Russia invading neighbouring countries. Russia invading other countries demonstrates the need for NATO to push eastwards.
Well exactly, so why do people insist on making the incorrect statement that no assurances were ever given? It weakens everything else they say
Well, you are, in fact, the one raising it…
Try reading the thread before embarrassing yourself again:
I replied to this
"@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing"
comment
'in fact' you seem to be incapable of sticking to the facts.
Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILD https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
How does that fit with Hegseth's lavish praise of Poland the other day, where the US presence was recently increasing?
I don't believe that there is any point in looking for consistency or an overall strategy in anything they are doing.
It is all reactive, often in response to the latest sllight, or the next person coming into the room. There are no goals apart from the enrichment of the oligarchy around them, demonstrative cruelty to everyone who is "out", and feeding the cult of the leader.
I would be happy for anyone to provide me a counter example that doesn't fit that obviously over-simplistic set of drivers, and I'd alter my view.
ETA: and Project 2025 is that simplistic set of drivers written down with examples.
Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILD https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
How does that fit with Hegseth's lavish praise of Poland the other day, where the US presence was recently increasing?
Surely everyone can see that Poland is historically part of Russia already?
If our national politics suddenly gets overtaken by critical matters of national security and European relations, the Tories could really do with a steady hand at the tiller. I fear Badenoch, if she continues her current trajectory, is going to look increasingly lightweight and unserious.
Of the candidates out there, it’s very slim pickings but characters like Hunt, Tugendhat (even though he didn’t impress in the leadership contest), maybe Stride at a pinch, might be the order of the day. I’d put Patel on that list as she seems to be reinventing herself as some kind of elder stateswoman figure in the Tory Party, but she doesn’t have the best record when it comes to foreign policy.
Good morning
Contrary to some comments on here Kemi did make a statement yesterday fully backing Zelensky and Ukraine and demanding Starmer increases defence spending
However, she is in office for the year so unlikely she will be replaced soon but my regret is Cleverly trying to be too clever in the ballot and missing out, as he would be a good choice
Everything is uncertain and who knows what may happen in the next few months and even a conservative mp retiring and giving Mordaunt a road back to the Commons
The one thing that yesterday did do is to put Farage, Tice and Reform on the spot and they have been remarkably silent
Nothing to do with the Biden administration increasing the money supply before leaving office, of course ?
I have no doubt at all Trumps policies are stupid and inflationary but current levels of inflation, down to Trump. No. He will have to own it if inflation keeps rising. He cannot dodge that.
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.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILD https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
How does that fit with Hegseth's lavish praise of Poland the other day, where the US presence was recently increasing?
Surely everyone can see that Poland is historically part of Russia already?
Sorry, I've just leaked the new US position...
Actually, about Poland.. and Germany.. this is a good piece ahead of this weekend's election.
You can’t undertand the country until you understand the unique way in which is was created. What is that? Why is the country so rich and powerful? Why so federal? Why is Berlin the capital? What lies in Germany’s future? Why can we still see the old East/West partition on random maps of today?
Today, we’re going to start with the most important one: What is the weird way in which Germany was formed, and why does it define it to this day?..
Good morning everybody. Warmer today. although cloudy.
I'm becoming increasingly confused ...... perhaps it's my age ...... over whether wild and outrageous statements attributed to Trump are actually made by him or by others.
Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILD https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
How does that fit with Hegseth's lavish praise of Poland the other day, where the US presence was recently increasing?
Surely everyone can see that Poland is historically part of Russia already?
Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILD https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
How does that fit with Hegseth's lavish praise of Poland the other day, where the US presence was recently increasing?
Why are we searching for logic ? It doesn't exist.
One of the interesting things about all the deliberate chaos being unleashed will be watching how (un)popular it becomes over the next few months, as those who voted for Trump begin to appreciate its consequences.
Nothing to do with the Biden administration increasing the money supply before leaving office, of course ?
I have no doubt at all Trumps policies are stupid and inflationary but current levels of inflation, down to Trump. No. He will have to own it if inflation keeps rising. He cannot dodge that.
I suspect it isn’t though - the concern I’m hearing is that people will stop spending as their fear the medium term so want cash savings in case of problems
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.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
Good morning everybody. Warmer today. although cloudy.
I'm becoming increasingly confused ...... perhaps it's my age ...... over whether wild and outrageous statements attributed to Trump are actually made by him or by others.
I watched his late night, near one hour tirade, and he repeated his outrageous statements live on air and double downed on Ukraine
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.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
It’s a lot more complex than that. You’re just posting things aligned with Russian propaganda, ignoring events after 1990 and what was actually agreed, and pretending that democracies can’t change their views.
You might as well argue that the UK is currently opposed to a unified Germany because Thatcher was in 1989.
Huh? Where am I suggesting any of that?
The correct analogy would be: People post that Thatcher was always in favour of German reunification, and I post documentary evidence that in 1989 she was opposed.
You are replying to posts about whether Russia is justified to state that NATO gave it assurances on expansion, which it did not. As several have stated, as most there was some vague discussion of it with the Soviet Union. But of course Russia itself declared independence from the Soviet Union and its PM even stood on a tank to demonstrate the point; so that’s irrelevant.
Have a look at yourself. I linked to declassified US documents showing that in 1990 the Soviet Union was given assurances that NATO wouldn't expand eastward and you immediately accuse me of spreading Kremlin propaganda!
You are the one helping Kremlin propaganda. When the Kremlin says "it's NATO’s fault for breaking the promise not to expand" and the response is to make an absolute denial that any kind of promise was ever made, it helps Kremlin propaganda. Because people who might not be well-informed might nevertheless hear this exchange, find out that you are factually incorrect, and therefore be more likely to believe the Kremlin's many actual lies.
The correct response is to point out no formal promise was given, things changed a lot rapidly, and to ask why former Warsaw Pact countries were so keen to join NATO, which as sovereign countries they have every right to do. And say other countries joining NATO is no excuse for an unprovoked illegal invasion of Ukraine.
The thing I immediately apologised for, leaving my post in place as a mea culpa, rather than deleting it, specifically as an olive branch?
You have then lied about my comments and put words in my mouth.
You’re obviously one to ignore. I had thought you were better than that, but sadly not.
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
You need the traditional full English. Works wonders.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
If you are going that road, you need a pint of Guinness with it. 6am at Smithfield market…
Smithfield is now shut. And along with it that entire unique pub culture
Not been the same since the sorting office closed in the 90s. The combination of the large sorting office, large hopsital, both working 24 hours, plus the early morning meat market made that corner of London unique.
True but Leon’s statement is wrong - Smithfield is still open until 2028 albeit slightly less busy than it used to be
A lot less busy. It’s a shadow of its former self and has been declining for many years. I used to cycle from my flat in Angel to the office in Westminster down St John’s Street and through the market. Wasn’t a proper day if I didn’t nearly crash into a frozen cow carcass and be shouted at by an incensed trader.
I later (‘08-‘12) worked off St John’s Street near the market and it was visibly declining in business.
I'm pretty sure The Fox & Anchor is the only early house left, and opens 7am.
When I worked nearby some 35 years ago you had a choice of at least 1/2 a dozen.
The plan to relocate to Dagenham has been canned after wasting about £300m
I suspect it will close in 2028 but hope it survives somehow.
How many fishmongers & butchers are there where you live ?
In my city there were at least 20 fishmongers until the 1950's - there are 2 left, both run by people in their 60's or 70's
Martin Samuel of the Times is a good read as his Dad and Grandad worked there.
In my town of 50k I have I think 3 I would call fishmongers.
One is a shop, one is a stall in an indoor market, and one is the fish counter at Morrisons. Plus a couple of fish vans who come from I think Grimsby. And I think a farm shop with a specialism.
Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILD https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
How does that fit with Hegseth's lavish praise of Poland the other day, where the US presence was recently increasing?
Surely everyone can see that Poland is historically part of Russia already?
Sorry, I've just leaked the new US position...
Actually, about Poland.. and Germany.. this is a good piece ahead of this weekend's election.
You can’t undertand the country until you understand the unique way in which is was created. What is that? Why is the country so rich and powerful? Why so federal? Why is Berlin the capital? What lies in Germany’s future? Why can we still see the old East/West partition on random maps of today?
Today, we’re going to start with the most important one: What is the weird way in which Germany was formed, and why does it define it to this day?..
Fascinating. Saved the link to have a good look what I've more time. Thanks, @Nigelb
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.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
It’s a lot more complex than that. You’re just posting things aligned with Russian propaganda, ignoring events after 1990 and what was actually agreed, and pretending that democracies can’t change their views.
You might as well argue that the UK is currently opposed to a unified Germany because Thatcher was in 1989.
Huh? Where am I suggesting any of that?
The correct analogy would be: People post that Thatcher was always in favour of German reunification, and I post documentary evidence that in 1989 she was opposed.
You are replying to posts about whether Russia is justified to state that NATO gave it assurances on expansion, which it did not. As several have stated, as most there was some vague discussion of it with the Soviet Union. But of course Russia itself declared independence from the Soviet Union and its PM even stood on a tank to demonstrate the point; so that’s irrelevant.
Have a look at yourself. I linked to declassified US documents showing that in 1990 the Soviet Union was given assurances that NATO wouldn't expand eastward and you immediately accuse me of spreading Kremlin propaganda!
You are the one helping Kremlin propaganda. When the Kremlin says "it's NATO’s fault for breaking the promise not to expand" and the response is to make an absolute denial that any kind of promise was ever made, it helps Kremlin propaganda. Because people who might not be well-informed might nevertheless hear this exchange, find out that you are factually incorrect, and therefore be more likely to believe the Kremlin's many actual lies.
The correct response is to point out no formal promise was given, things changed a lot rapidly, and to ask why former Warsaw Pact countries were so keen to join NATO, which as sovereign countries they have every right to do. And say other countries joining NATO is no excuse for an unprovoked illegal invasion of Ukraine.
The thing I immediately apologised for, leaving my post in place as a mea culpa, rather than deleting it, specifically as an olive branch?
You have then lied about my comments and put words in my mouth.
You’re obviously one to ignore. I had thought you were better than that, but sadly not.
1990 is now 35 years ago. The world has moved on.
Well we had examples from 1935 quoted yesterday have we moved on from 90 years ago.
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.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
If our national politics suddenly gets overtaken by critical matters of national security and European relations, the Tories could really do with a steady hand at the tiller. I fear Badenoch, if she continues her current trajectory, is going to look increasingly lightweight and unserious.
Of the candidates out there, it’s very slim pickings but characters like Hunt, Tugendhat (even though he didn’t impress in the leadership contest), maybe Stride at a pinch, might be the order of the day. I’d put Patel on that list as she seems to be reinventing herself as some kind of elder stateswoman figure in the Tory Party, but she doesn’t have the best record when it comes to foreign policy.
Good morning
Contrary to some comments on here Kemi did make a statement yesterday fully backing Zelensky and Ukraine and demanding Starmer increases defence spending
However, she is in office for the year so unlikely she will be replaced soon but my regret is Cleverly trying to be too clever in the ballot and missing out, as he would be a good choice
Everything is uncertain and who knows what may happen in the next few months and even a conservative mp retiring and giving Mordaunt a road back to the Commons
The one thing that yesterday did do is to put Farage, Tice and Reform on the spot and they have been remarkably silent
A vote for Reform is a vote for Trump - Putin
Sensible comments BigG but Cleverly is going to run for London Mayor in 2028, where sensibly he probably has more chance of winning on current polls than becoming PM at the next GE even if he became Tory leader
Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILD https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
How does that fit with Hegseth's lavish praise of Poland the other day, where the US presence was recently increasing?
Surely everyone can see that Poland is historically part of Russia already?
Sorry, I've just leaked the new US position...
Bugger that, its not that long ago that we were all speaking latin and watching Christians being eaten by lions. Looking at some of the villa finds from the 2nd and 3td centuries in southern England you can imagine a pretty nice life back then.*
*Assuming you owned the villa and were not one of the many slaves, or the down-trodden masses, obviously.
By the next UK GE, we might end up with a realignment of the US and Russia on the same side, with a serious effort to force European countries to choose between aligning with some vision of "Europe" and aligning with the US and Russia. By the point that the US/Russian alternative is a serious option, we can expect Farage and co. to come out and advocate for it - they can't do that right now because it's too amorphous, but by 2028 or so it might end up looking like a real thing.
I've thought since 2016 or so that the real long game here is to end up with a "northern alliance" of mostly white, mostly Christian(ish) powers across the northern hemisphere or, as we might be calling it by the 2050s, the "habitable zone". The aim would then be to string a drone fleet across the Med and across Russia's Asian borders to keep absolutely everyone else out, with a more-or-less neocolonial resource-extraction approach to the rest of the world. Trump's Mexico wall is just the start.
For this to work, the EU either has to be enlisted to the project, or near-fatally-undermined. Either option could be viable, but for the former to work you really need right-wing politicians to be able to win power in major EU countries, and for the EU to switch to following their agenda. This is not entirely without precedent in EU history, as the EU has oscillated between being a social democratic protectionist bloc and a neoliberaler-than-thou free market, and the assumption that the EU has an inherent ideological preference have turned out to be hollow.
Right now, most right-wing parties are somewhat anti-EU, but only in the sense that they are not in control of it. But it has not escaped the attention of Meloni that the build-the-wall-in-the-Med approach only really works if it's coordinated at something like the EU level, which is why she's much more pro-EU than one might otherwise expect. Frontex would probably be the agency that winds up operating the Mediterranean drone fleet, after all.
The question is whether Trump is genuinely barmy or having a 'senior moment'? Unfortunately, I remember him suggesting oral domestos as a treatment for COVID.
Biden, dementia and all, might have been better, but the Democrats tried to keep him going too long. But at least, they knew he was unsafe, and they wouldn't have let him have free rein. The poor Republicans can't make any excuses.
I was hoping he was scamming Ukraine over the valuable minerals they may have, but his ignorance and arrogance suggests not.
It's going to be a long four years but he does look like a walking heart attack, and Vance might have learned his lesson. We can always offer to let them back into being our colony if they pay the 250 years of tea-tax they owe.
Reflecting on the Ukraine position, three main takeaways:
1) Putin has overplayed his hand. There was a landing zone for a peace deal that was relatively favourable for Russia but that Ukraine felt obliged to accept due to the threat to the US withdrawing her troops. However, the basis of negotiations so far are so favourable to Russia, including Trump spouting Russian propaganda we're usually subject to on a Saturday morning, that is not viable. Ukraine will keep on fighting without US aid rather than accept such terms. We will support them in doing so.
2) Trump will cosy up to Russia regardless and loosen sanctions / do business deals. He will blame Ukraine for his deal being scuppered and cast Zelenskyy as a scapegoat.
3) Europe and the UK will maintain sanctions on Russia, which will make things complicated for multinationals. In the absence of US sanctions I think the UK will become important in applying financial pressure regarding banking etc. Military spending is also going to rise well above 2.5% of GDP now that the US no longer protects Europe.
I think the longstanding Estonian argued standard of 0.25% of GDP to support Ukraine will come to the fore.
(UK support is currently about half that afaics.)
That was pushed by Kaya Kallas when Estonian PM, and she is now High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
You need the traditional full English. Works wonders.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
If you are going that road, you need a pint of Guinness with it. 6am at Smithfield market…
Smithfield is now shut. And along with it that entire unique pub culture
Not been the same since the sorting office closed in the 90s. The combination of the large sorting office, large hopsital, both working 24 hours, plus the early morning meat market made that corner of London unique.
True but Leon’s statement is wrong - Smithfield is still open until 2028 albeit slightly less busy than it used to be
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.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
So what? Its 35 years ago. The world is very different. No government can bid a successor and all that.
If our national politics suddenly gets overtaken by critical matters of national security and European relations, the Tories could really do with a steady hand at the tiller. I fear Badenoch, if she continues her current trajectory, is going to look increasingly lightweight and unserious.
Of the candidates out there, it’s very slim pickings but characters like Hunt, Tugendhat (even though he didn’t impress in the leadership contest), maybe Stride at a pinch, might be the order of the day. I’d put Patel on that list as she seems to be reinventing herself as some kind of elder stateswoman figure in the Tory Party, but she doesn’t have the best record when it comes to foreign policy.
Good morning
Contrary to some comments on here Kemi did make a statement yesterday fully backing Zelensky and Ukraine and demanding Starmer increases defence spending
However, she is in office for the year so unlikely she will be replaced soon but my regret is Cleverly trying to be too clever in the ballot and missing out, as he would be a good choice
Everything is uncertain and who knows what may happen in the next few months and even a conservative mp retiring and giving Mordaunt a road back to the Commons
The one thing that yesterday did do is to put Farage, Tice and Reform on the spot and they have been remarkably silent
A vote for Reform is a vote for Trump - Putin
Agree with all that. Cleverly, Mordaunt or Tugendhat would all be much better fits for LOTO now than Badenoch. The Tories really need someone who looks like a credible potential PM that the public can have confidence in. The screw-up made by the MPs that gave the members the choice of Jenrick and Badenoch was monumental.
Anyway, we are where we are, and at least Patel and Kemi seem to be getting it - presume some of the more sensible MPs have been burning their ears.
We all have to hope that Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron manage to get somewhere in Washington. A lot will now rest on the new German chancellor who we have to hope is an improvement on Sholtz and Merkel.
I truly hope the Trump-enablers and their fellow-travellers end up in the fieriest circle of hell.
Yes as the figures show supporting Trump gives Reform a ceiling of about 22%. While that would see Reform seat gains it is well short of the 28% they need for most seats and the 30%+ for a majority
I think that's right. Trump was never very popular in the UK, far less so now and it's likely to get even worse.
The 20% of voters who currently love Trump are pretty much the Reform base and I can only see that base shrinking as Trump's term progresses. His comments on Zelensky I think have shocked a lot of people, it makes any deal between the Conservatives and Reform far less likely to happen.
If Reform are still a thing in 4 years time, tactical voting against them at a GE will be ferocious. The idea of Reform forming part of any government after 2029 has receded considerably this week
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
You need the traditional full English. Works wonders.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
If you are going that road, you need a pint of Guinness with it. 6am at Smithfield market…
Smithfield is now shut. And along with it that entire unique pub culture
Not been the same since the sorting office closed in the 90s. The combination of the large sorting office, large hopsital, both working 24 hours, plus the early morning meat market made that corner of London unique.
True but Leon’s statement is wrong - Smithfield is still open until 2028 albeit slightly less busy than it used to be
A lot less busy. It’s a shadow of its former self and has been declining for many years. I used to cycle from my flat in Angel to the office in Westminster down St John’s Street and through the market. Wasn’t a proper day if I didn’t nearly crash into a frozen cow carcass and be shouted at by an incensed trader.
I later (‘08-‘12) worked off St John’s Street near the market and it was visibly declining in business.
I'm pretty sure The Fox & Anchor is the only early house left, and opens 7am.
When I worked nearby some 35 years ago you had a choice of at least 1/2 a dozen.
The plan to relocate to Dagenham has been canned after wasting about £300m
I suspect it will close in 2028 but hope it survives somehow.
How many fishmongers & butchers are there where you live ?
In my city there were at least 20 fishmongers until the 1950's - there are 2 left, both run by people in their 60's or 70's
Martin Samuel of the Times is a good read as his Dad and Grandad worked there.
In my town of 50k I have I think 3 I would call fishmongers.
One is a shop, one is a stall in an indoor market, and one is the fish counter at Morrisons. Plus a couple of fish vans who come from I think Grimsby. And I think a farm shop with a specialism.
Butchers - probably 4-6 fairly close.
Our town is probably about 20k and has a butchers, and a very frequent fruit and veg stall in the main arcade (they used to run a shop but prefer to have the stall). No fishmonger but a van is there on market day.
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.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
It’s a lot more complex than that. You’re just posting things aligned with Russian propaganda, ignoring events after 1990 and what was actually agreed, and pretending that democracies can’t change their views.
You might as well argue that the UK is currently opposed to a unified Germany because Thatcher was in 1989.
Huh? Where am I suggesting any of that?
The correct analogy would be: People post that Thatcher was always in favour of German reunification, and I post documentary evidence that in 1989 she was opposed.
You are replying to posts about whether Russia is justified to state that NATO gave it assurances on expansion, which it did not. As several have stated, as most there was some vague discussion of it with the Soviet Union. But of course Russia itself declared independence from the Soviet Union and its PM even stood on a tank to demonstrate the point; so that’s irrelevant.
Have a look at yourself. I linked to declassified US documents showing that in 1990 the Soviet Union was given assurances that NATO wouldn't expand eastward and you immediately accuse me of spreading Kremlin propaganda!
You are the one helping Kremlin propaganda. When the Kremlin says "it's NATO’s fault for breaking the promise not to expand" and the response is to make an absolute denial that any kind of promise was ever made, it helps Kremlin propaganda. Because people who might not be well-informed might nevertheless hear this exchange, find out that you are factually incorrect, and therefore be more likely to believe the Kremlin's many actual lies.
The correct response is to point out no formal promise was given, things changed a lot rapidly, and to ask why former Warsaw Pact countries were so keen to join NATO, which as sovereign countries they have every right to do. And say other countries joining NATO is no excuse for an unprovoked illegal invasion of Ukraine.
The thing I immediately apologised for, leaving my post in place as a mea culpa, rather than deleting it, specifically as an olive branch?
You have then lied about my comments and put words in my mouth.
You’re obviously one to ignore. I had thought you were better than that, but sadly not.
Ah sorry I didn't see your apology.
But I don't see where I have lied about your posts?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 21m So it's strange. We're constantly told that Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, and Rupert Lowe are "straight talkers". They've had a lot to say about Putin in the past. They've had a lot to say about Trump in the past. But suddenly they seem to have lost their voices. Why is that.
(Led to the rise in support for the far right would be a better way of phrasing it.)
They absolutely should. Standing aside in moral superiority is no way to win friends for their cause. Similarly, there should be no recourse to cancel culture. The left has a lot of work to do and needs to raise its game if it is to halt the West's incipient slide into fascism.
Is this actually a terrible thing? After all, as we've seen across Europe, centre, centre-right activists have been willing to work with the hard right. Perhaps the compromises are only one way, with centre / centre-right parties unwilling to move slightly left on policy. Compromise requires movement in both directions. The west's "incipient slide into facism" is being driven by a media controlled by a small number of right wing billionaires, not by left wing activists refusing to adopt their policies.
I agree with a lot of this but the left needs to engage with people's concerns rather than just tell them they are awful people.
It’s two way traffic though. Now Sir Keir & co have repented of their support for Corbyn, they seem pretty disengaged from the concerns of the hundreds of thousands of (mainly young) supporters he attracted, hence the meagre Labour share at the last GE. One of the least attractive traits of centrist Labour (epitomised by SLab as it happens) is the impression that the natural order has been restored when they regain power, and they can resume their way of doing things without bothering much with any progressive coalition building.
If Labour lost its majority at the next GE it might well have to include the more Corbynite Greens and the SNP to some degree for confidence and supply of the LDs alone did not give enough support for a majority
If our national politics suddenly gets overtaken by critical matters of national security and European relations, the Tories could really do with a steady hand at the tiller. I fear Badenoch, if she continues her current trajectory, is going to look increasingly lightweight and unserious.
Of the candidates out there, it’s very slim pickings but characters like Hunt, Tugendhat (even though he didn’t impress in the leadership contest), maybe Stride at a pinch, might be the order of the day. I’d put Patel on that list as she seems to be reinventing herself as some kind of elder stateswoman figure in the Tory Party, but she doesn’t have the best record when it comes to foreign policy.
Good morning
Contrary to some comments on here Kemi did make a statement yesterday fully backing Zelensky and Ukraine and demanding Starmer increases defence spending
However, she is in office for the year so unlikely she will be replaced soon but my regret is Cleverly trying to be too clever in the ballot and missing out, as he would be a good choice
Everything is uncertain and who knows what may happen in the next few months and even a conservative mp retiring and giving Mordaunt a road back to the Commons
The one thing that yesterday did do is to put Farage, Tice and Reform on the spot and they have been remarkably silent
A vote for Reform is a vote for Trump - Putin
Sensible comments BigG but Cleverly is going to run for London Mayor in 2028, where sensibly he probably has more chance of winning on current polls than becoming PM at the next GE even if he became Tory leader
That’s a good move
I like Cleverly and he has the big confident persona that fits london - and my god his positive energy would be a massive welcome change - after the dreary joyless teetotal whining of Khan
He’s not right for Tory leader but I’d vote for him as mayor tomorrow
There is just a possibility that Starmer may have a "Love Actually" moment when he goes to the US shortly, where he makes clear that our relationship with the US is no longer as strong as it was, that this behaviour has consequences and you don't get to be leaders of the free world by having a completely self interested, transactional view of the world and allies.
I am not hugely optimistic but he should reflect on some of the polling in the header. It could do more for his popularity than anything he has done since coming to Downing Street (a low bar, admittedly). More importantly, someone needs to wake the Americans up from their thrall and it needs to be done in a way that is impossible to ignore.
The poster in the header is exactly where I am but it is Americans who need to do something about this.
Britain has chosen, from immediate self interest, to triangulate and try and act as a bridge between the US and Europe. I think in the immediate term Starmer has to keep up that facade, but I do not see this as a long term policy, and I think should only maintained until so long as we see Trump’s intentions, deliver the Ukrainian settlement, and have time to discuss and decide the way forwards with Europe.
Britain has been all-in on its relationship with the US since the second world war. Everything we do strategically is rooted in that relationship. Trump has broken it but you can't just switch it off. I don't think the UK has any realistic choice but to try and salvage what it can.
We have not always been an ally of the US. We even fought a War against them when they tried to gain their independence and another war against them a few decades later when a previous President of the new republic of the USA invaded Canada, still as now a realm of the King.
Of course we can build relationships with a post Trump led US but for now Trump's US is arguably even less of an ally than China
I don't believe that there is any point in looking for consistency or an overall strategy in anything they are doing.
It is all reactive, often in response to the latest sllight, or the next person coming into the room. There are no goals apart from the enrichment of the oligarchy around them, demonstrative cruelty to everyone who is "out", and feeding the cult of the leader.
I would be happy for anyone to provide me a counter example that doesn't fit that obviously over-simplistic set of drivers, and I'd alter my view.
ETA: and Project 2025 is that simplistic set of drivers written down with examples.
I agree. Trump is driven by power and greed, and has a very simplistic zero-sum view of transactions. So in his world it's not about right or wrong, or short versus long term options. He's not looking for deals that benefit all. Trump simply wants power, without legal restraint, more wealth for himself, his circle, and to a limited degree America, and he does not give a damn how this happens. He has to win, and you have to lose.
The only people Trump respects are people who see the world like he does, and they are almost all terrible leaders of autocratic states. He sure as hell does not respect people who feel constrained by law or morality, or people who think we can work together (those people are suckers in Trump's view).
If our national politics suddenly gets overtaken by critical matters of national security and European relations, the Tories could really do with a steady hand at the tiller. I fear Badenoch, if she continues her current trajectory, is going to look increasingly lightweight and unserious.
Of the candidates out there, it’s very slim pickings but characters like Hunt, Tugendhat (even though he didn’t impress in the leadership contest), maybe Stride at a pinch, might be the order of the day. I’d put Patel on that list as she seems to be reinventing herself as some kind of elder stateswoman figure in the Tory Party, but she doesn’t have the best record when it comes to foreign policy.
Good morning
Contrary to some comments on here Kemi did make a statement yesterday fully backing Zelensky and Ukraine and demanding Starmer increases defence spending
However, she is in office for the year so unlikely she will be replaced soon but my regret is Cleverly trying to be too clever in the ballot and missing out, as he would be a good choice
Everything is uncertain and who knows what may happen in the next few months and even a conservative mp retiring and giving Mordaunt a road back to the Commons
The one thing that yesterday did do is to put Farage, Tice and Reform on the spot and they have been remarkably silent
A vote for Reform is a vote for Trump Putin
I thought on that one she rather threaded the needle, avoiding addressing Trump head on, which is perhaps because she has not yet decided how to deal with the Jenrick wing, and is concerned about Reform peeling off part of her party.
She could also not yet be clear about her personal positioning.
Although TBF she was giving a speech to ARC, which is a Paul Marshall / Jordan Peterson setup. And would want to meet their concerns.
Some of you may have noticed the improvement in de-aging in cinemas recently. This is because the tech has moved from "construct a virtual mesh and fit muscles, skin and hair over it" to "use machine learning*1 to predict each pixel". The former is very time consuming and takes longer and longer to make incremental changes, and has probably reached its limit now. The latter is increasingly important, requires less human intervention, can be (mostly) done in real time, and is superseding the former
This makes me recall the story of Phil Tippett, who was an expert in stop-motion animation and submitted a bid for Jurassic Park using stop-motion dinosaurs. While he was there he saw the other bids using computer animation. Afterwards he abandoned physical animation and moved to CGI, creating the bugs in Starship Troopers.
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
You need the traditional full English. Works wonders.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
If you are going that road, you need a pint of Guinness with it. 6am at Smithfield market…
Smithfield is now shut. And along with it that entire unique pub culture
Not been the same since the sorting office closed in the 90s. The combination of the large sorting office, large hopsital, both working 24 hours, plus the early morning meat market made that corner of London unique.
True but Leon’s statement is wrong - Smithfield is still open until 2028 albeit slightly less busy than it used to be
I was there a few weeks ago, It is a pale shadow if what it was: so, so quiet. It used to be a great part of town. It's now just a place to walk through to get somewhere else.
If our national politics suddenly gets overtaken by critical matters of national security and European relations, the Tories could really do with a steady hand at the tiller. I fear Badenoch, if she continues her current trajectory, is going to look increasingly lightweight and unserious.
Of the candidates out there, it’s very slim pickings but characters like Hunt, Tugendhat (even though he didn’t impress in the leadership contest), maybe Stride at a pinch, might be the order of the day. I’d put Patel on that list as she seems to be reinventing herself as some kind of elder stateswoman figure in the Tory Party, but she doesn’t have the best record when it comes to foreign policy.
Good morning
Contrary to some comments on here Kemi did make a statement yesterday fully backing Zelensky and Ukraine and demanding Starmer increases defence spending
However, she is in office for the year so unlikely she will be replaced soon but my regret is Cleverly trying to be too clever in the ballot and missing out, as he would be a good choice
Everything is uncertain and who knows what may happen in the next few months and even a conservative mp retiring and giving Mordaunt a road back to the Commons
The one thing that yesterday did do is to put Farage, Tice and Reform on the spot and they have been remarkably silent
A vote for Reform is a vote for Trump - Putin
Sensible comments BigG but Cleverly is going to run for London Mayor in 2028, where sensibly he probably has more chance of winning on current polls than becoming PM at the next GE even if he became Tory leader
That’s a good move
I like Cleverly and he has the big confident persona that fits london - and my god his positive energy would be a massive welcome change - after the dreary joyless teetotal whining of Khan
He’s not right for Tory leader but I’d vote for him as mayor tomorrow
Indeed and London remains a Tory v Labour battle, Reform are much weaker in the capital than the rest of the UK so Cleverly can unite the right there to beat Khan
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 21m So it's strange. We're constantly told that Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, and Rupert Lowe are "straight talkers". They've had a lot to say about Putin in the past. They've had a lot to say about Trump in the past. But suddenly they seem to have lost their voices. Why is that.
For all the hype about straight talk, Farage plays on cakeism almost as much as Boris. We can have lower taxes, a smaller state, better services and the only losers will be the wokerati. Full control of our nation and the power to tell others what to do. Much simpler to do from a perch in opposition, of course.
But it's hard to see what the cake-and-eat-it message is here. I'm sure that most Reform voters are decent patriots who don't like what Putin is doing to Ukraine. (And the polling in the header reflects that.) But a decent slice of their supporters and flip knows who in the background rather approve.
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
You need the traditional full English. Works wonders.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
If you are going that road, you need a pint of Guinness with it. 6am at Smithfield market…
Smithfield is now shut. And along with it that entire unique pub culture
Not been the same since the sorting office closed in the 90s. The combination of the large sorting office, large hopsital, both working 24 hours, plus the early morning meat market made that corner of London unique.
True but Leon’s statement is wrong - Smithfield is still open until 2028 albeit slightly less busy than it used to be
I was there a few weeks ago, It is a pale shadow if what it was: so, so quiet. It used to be a great part of town. It's now just a place to walk through to get somewhere else.
It is very sad. On the plus side, the Museum of London was a great place when it was at Barbican, and I'm hoping it will be as good if not better when it opens on the Smithfield site next year.
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
You need the traditional full English. Works wonders.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
If you are going that road, you need a pint of Guinness with it. 6am at Smithfield market…
Smithfield is now shut. And along with it that entire unique pub culture
Not been the same since the sorting office closed in the 90s. The combination of the large sorting office, large hopsital, both working 24 hours, plus the early morning meat market made that corner of London unique.
True but Leon’s statement is wrong - Smithfield is still open until 2028 albeit slightly less busy than it used to be
A lot less busy. It’s a shadow of its former self and has been declining for many years. I used to cycle from my flat in Angel to the office in Westminster down St John’s Street and through the market. Wasn’t a proper day if I didn’t nearly crash into a frozen cow carcass and be shouted at by an incensed trader.
I later (‘08-‘12) worked off St John’s Street near the market and it was visibly declining in business.
I'm pretty sure The Fox & Anchor is the only early house left, and opens 7am.
When I worked nearby some 35 years ago you had a choice of at least 1/2 a dozen.
The plan to relocate to Dagenham has been canned after wasting about £300m
I suspect it will close in 2028 but hope it survives somehow.
How many fishmongers & butchers are there where you live ?
In my city there were at least 20 fishmongers until the 1950's - there are 2 left, both run by people in their 60's or 70's
Martin Samuel of the Times is a good read as his Dad and Grandad worked there.
In my town of 50k I have I think 3 I would call fishmongers.
One is a shop, one is a stall in an indoor market, and one is the fish counter at Morrisons. Plus a couple of fish vans who come from I think Grimsby. And I think a farm shop with a specialism.
Butchers - probably 4-6 fairly close.
Our town is probably about 20k and has a butchers, and a very frequent fruit and veg stall in the main arcade (they used to run a shop but prefer to have the stall). No fishmonger but a van is there on market day.
Our outdoor market is a shadow of its former self.
The place round here that still has the best outdoor market is Chesterfield, which has perhaps 100-140 stalls 3 days a week (Tue,Fri,Sat).
Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILD https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
How does that fit with Hegseth's lavish praise of Poland the other day, where the US presence was recently increasing?
Surely everyone can see that Poland is historically part of Russia already?
Yes as the figures show supporting Trump gives Reform a ceiling of about 22%. While that would see Reform seat gains it is well short of the 28% they need for most seats and the 30%+ for a majority
I think that's right. Trump was never very popular in the UK, far less so now and it's likely to get even worse.
The 20% of voters who currently love Trump are pretty much the Reform base and I can only see that base shrinking as Trump's term progresses. His comments on Zelensky I think have shocked a lot of people, it makes any deal between the Conservatives and Reform far less likely to happen.
If Reform are still a thing in 4 years time, tactical voting against them at a GE will be ferocious. The idea of Reform forming part of any government after 2029 has receded considerably this week
I think it’s too early to write off Reform because (a) there is scope for them to reinvent themselves as being hawks on national security which goes hand in hand with border security and (b) the fiscal and monetary policies of the government, which I suspect in broad terms the Tories will have to line up behind at least in part, are going to hurt people. We’ll be paying more, working more, and there’ll be further cuts, to pay for the security apparatus and defence. That will allow Reform to stoke discontent with the “uniparty”.
Yes, I know both (a) and (b) are contradictory, but I don’t think that will bother Farage. He just plays off grievance. He’ll likely blame closer relations to Europe for (b).
The Times today: "As the Lords economic affairs committee wrote to Liz Kendall last month, the £65 billion incapacity and disability benefits bill is now 20 per cent higher than Britain’s entire defence budget – and is due to reach £100 billion by 2029-30."
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 21m So it's strange. We're constantly told that Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, and Rupert Lowe are "straight talkers". They've had a lot to say about Putin in the past. They've had a lot to say about Trump in the past. But suddenly they seem to have lost their voices. Why is that.
I suspect Farage and co. are biding their time. The ideal spin will be that big friendly peace-loving Don has brokered a perfectly wonderful deal, but Zelenskyy has scuppered it out of sheer awkwardness. Obviously, that won't ever be the case, but Reform need some sort of situation where they can persuade their credulous supporters that it is.
Good morning everybody. Warmer today. although cloudy.
I'm becoming increasingly confused ...... perhaps it's my age ...... over whether wild and outrageous statements attributed to Trump are actually made by him or by others.
I watched his late night, near one hour tirade, and he repeated his outrageous statements live on air and double downed on Ukraine
"Tirade" is a great word in relation to Trump. His rallies have always had that as part of them. Trump ranting and raving about whatever is in his head. Often with a focus - identify America's enemies, we can be Great Again. Sometimes with no focus when he wanders off into shark vs electrocution debates.
The parallels to a certain other demagogue who used to give lengthy tirades about how sovereign states actually should be his is obvious.
Donald Trump on Air Force 1: “We had a rare earth deal, and Ukraine agreed to it, more or less.. ... And then Scott Besset actually went there and was treated rather rudely, because essentially they told him no. Zelenskyy was sleeping and unavailable to meet him (?) He traveled many hours on the train, which is a dangerous trip, and we're talking about the Secretary of the Treasury. He went there to get a document signed, and when he got there, he came back empty. They wouldn't sign the document. ... I think I'm going to resurrect the deal, or things are not going to make them too happy. And look, it's time for elections. Haven't had an election in a long time."
At least he’s transparent about it being a shakedown…
Mildly amusing reading the comments on here, lambasting Badenoch, whilst the usuals either ignore or try and paint Starmer as some kind of potential Gandalf figure.
Badenoch is as irrelevant now as Starmer was when Russia invaded Ukraine in Feb 2022. She's put out a statement that is utterly correct, yet some seem to think she is critically important and must do something else.
These are dangerous times for Starmer. People seem to have a short memory about the outcomes of the 'cost of living crisis', not just here, but abroad.
That crisis was partly blamed on the Ukraine war. This could be part two, potentially much worse, and the politicians holding the baton, didn't last.
Economically, Labour have placed us in a dreadful position to face this crisis and their policy on energy is going to come under huge pressure. I'm not hopeful they have the ability to deal with this.
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.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
That’s a very selective wording of a question.
I don't see what the problem is, but go ahead and put the question in a way you're happy with. It's just a matter of historical record.
Does Ukraine being interested in joining NATO and NATO being willing to consider the possibility constitute a legitimate casus belli for Russia to invade and annex territory?
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
You need the traditional full English. Works wonders.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
If you are going that road, you need a pint of Guinness with it. 6am at Smithfield market…
Smithfield is now shut. And along with it that entire unique pub culture
Not been the same since the sorting office closed in the 90s. The combination of the large sorting office, large hopsital, both working 24 hours, plus the early morning meat market made that corner of London unique.
True but Leon’s statement is wrong - Smithfield is still open until 2028 albeit slightly less busy than it used to be
A lot less busy. It’s a shadow of its former self and has been declining for many years. I used to cycle from my flat in Angel to the office in Westminster down St John’s Street and through the market. Wasn’t a proper day if I didn’t nearly crash into a frozen cow carcass and be shouted at by an incensed trader.
I later (‘08-‘12) worked off St John’s Street near the market and it was visibly declining in business.
I'm pretty sure The Fox & Anchor is the only early house left, and opens 7am.
When I worked nearby some 35 years ago you had a choice of at least 1/2 a dozen.
The plan to relocate to Dagenham has been canned after wasting about £300m
I suspect it will close in 2028 but hope it survives somehow.
How many fishmongers & butchers are there where you live ?
In my city there were at least 20 fishmongers until the 1950's - there are 2 left, both run by people in their 60's or 70's
Martin Samuel of the Times is a good read as his Dad and Grandad worked there.
In my town of 50k I have I think 3 I would call fishmongers.
One is a shop, one is a stall in an indoor market, and one is the fish counter at Morrisons. Plus a couple of fish vans who come from I think Grimsby. And I think a farm shop with a specialism.
Butchers - probably 4-6 fairly close.
Our town is probably about 20k and has a butchers, and a very frequent fruit and veg stall in the main arcade (they used to run a shop but prefer to have the stall). No fishmonger but a van is there on market day.
Our outdoor market is a shadow of its former self.
The place round here that still has the best outdoor market is Chesterfield, which has perhaps 100-140 stalls 3 days a week (Tue,Fri,Sat).
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
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.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
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.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
II hate to continue this, but informal assurances are not treaties. They are not formal, and between individuals.
Both the countries and individuals involved were soon out of the picture. The idea that the assurances are somehow inherited by new governments is a little odd. That's why we write these things down and make them official.
"I want to reassure you that none of the bill increase will go towards executive director bonuses. Customers do not pay for bonuses; they are entirely funded by our investors."
That two in three RUK voters like Donald Trump says something about the kind of people that party is attracting, doesn't it. But I guess we knew this anyway. Betting implications? A correlation between DJT's fortunes and RUK's is a structural weakness for them since it's unlikely that Trump will deliver anything but chaos, confusion and bad blood. Yet RUK are 2.9 to win the next election. Looks too short to me.
The Times today: "As the Lords economic affairs committee wrote to Liz Kendall last month, the £65 billion incapacity and disability benefits bill is now 20 per cent higher than Britain’s entire defence budget – and is due to reach £100 billion by 2029-30."
This is mad.
Plausible. The Boomers (born between 1945 and Dec 1964) are now all in their 60s, with the oldest being 80. There's a lot of them and between 2030-35 they'll be between 65 and 90, or "peak old people". Keeping them in a decent state as they slip into the dark will be very expensive. I don't know how to fix this.
The Times today: "As the Lords economic affairs committee wrote to Liz Kendall last month, the £65 billion incapacity and disability benefits bill is now 20 per cent higher than Britain’s entire defence budget – and is due to reach £100 billion by 2029-30."
This is mad.
Plausible. The Boomers (born between 1945 and Dec 1964) are now all in their 60s, with the oldest being 80. There's a lot of them and between 2030-35 they'll be between 65 and 90, or "peak old people". Keeping them in a decent state as they slip into the dark will be very expensive. I don't know how to fix this.
But this is the incapacity and disability benefits bill, so not the retired? (or not just the retired)
Donald Trump on Air Force 1: “We had a rare earth deal, and Ukraine agreed to it, more or less.. ... And then Scott Besset actually went there and was treated rather rudely, because essentially they told him no. Zelenskyy was sleeping and unavailable to meet him (?) He traveled many hours on the train, which is a dangerous trip, and we're talking about the Secretary of the Treasury. He went there to get a document signed, and when he got there, he came back empty. They wouldn't sign the document. ... I think I'm going to resurrect the deal, or things are not going to make them too happy. And look, it's time for elections. Haven't had an election in a long time."
I know how Donald feels. I agreed to buy a house in Knightsbridge - sent my lawyer round and the owner was asleep and when he woke up he laughed in my lawyers face.
I said we had agreed to buy the house for £5.00 and the owner sort of said, go fuck yourself. So rude. My lawyer went all the way there and came back empty handed. I will resurect this deal, will offer £6.00.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
I’m visualising a woman with the tag Plenty O’Toole posting somewhere (Mumsnet?) about how all the male Centre Parc customers are fat beery munters.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
I'd love to see these 'plain jane' rankings of you.
When I went to Centre Parcs (Thetford Forest) a few years ago, there were lots of somewhat overweight kids and adults in the pool.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
I'd love to see these 'plain jane' rankings of you.
When I went to Centre Parcs (Thetford Forest) a few years ago, there were lots of somewhat overweight kids and adults in the pool.
Yeah, true. The one time I did see a handful of those (8? 10? 12?) they were all in the pool.
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
You need the traditional full English. Works wonders.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
If you are going that road, you need a pint of Guinness with it. 6am at Smithfield market…
Smithfield is now shut. And along with it that entire unique pub culture
Not been the same since the sorting office closed in the 90s. The combination of the large sorting office, large hopsital, both working 24 hours, plus the early morning meat market made that corner of London unique.
True but Leon’s statement is wrong - Smithfield is still open until 2028 albeit slightly less busy than it used to be
A lot less busy. It’s a shadow of its former self and has been declining for many years. I used to cycle from my flat in Angel to the office in Westminster down St John’s Street and through the market. Wasn’t a proper day if I didn’t nearly crash into a frozen cow carcass and be shouted at by an incensed trader.
I later (‘08-‘12) worked off St John’s Street near the market and it was visibly declining in business.
Comments
Why?
NYU College Republicans president resigns after saying Barron Trump ‘sort of an oddity’
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5152978-new-york-university-college-republicans-resign/
Trump says ‘inflation is back’: ‘I had nothing to do with it’
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5152657-donald-trump-rising-inflation-doge-tariffs-economy/
Then I realised I could earn more in the private sector.
SK is notable in that he engages with different views, and posts a lot of info interesting to all.
If you know of a Centre-Right or Right analog, I'll add it to the Starter Pack.
The best candidate I have so far is probably Mark Wallace of Total Politics.
Amplification of his worst tendencies by social media? (We definitely see this with Musk & Trump is probably equally affected.)
Dementia reducing his frontal lobe capacity, resulting in short term id-driven decision making?
All of the above?
Certainly it seems that those who went round liberally accusing others of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” ought to be asking themselves some searching questions.
I have no doubt at all Trumps policies are stupid and inflationary but current levels of inflation, down to Trump. No. He will have to own it if inflation keeps rising. He cannot dodge that.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m2
Of the candidates out there, it’s very slim pickings but characters like Hunt, Tugendhat (even though he didn’t impress in the leadership contest), maybe Stride at a pinch, might be the order of the day. I’d put Patel on that list as she seems to be reinventing herself as some kind of elder stateswoman figure in the Tory Party, but she doesn’t have the best record when it comes to foreign policy.
When I worked nearby some 35 years ago you had a choice of at least 1/2 a dozen.
The plan to relocate to Dagenham has been canned after wasting about £300m
I suspect it will close in 2028 but hope it survives somehow.
How many fishmongers & butchers are there where you live ?
In my city there were at least 20 fishmongers until the 1950's - there are 2 left, both run by people in their 60's or 70's
Martin Samuel of the Times is a good read as his Dad and Grandad worked there.
The War On London nightlife continues.
It has some interesting twists.
*innocent face*
As Tony Blair put it, it’s an argument about the state spending over a range of 5% of GDP. The stuff the money is spent on doesn’t vary.
Then surprise when people start thinking - “Why bother to vote, they are all just the same”.
It contains much truth.
https://x.com/saintjavelin/status/1892259896042611058
In the longer term, the chances of this all ending like Threads has increased. Trump’s sellout in Ukraine means a heightened risk of nuclear proliferation (they’ll be the new cool toy to avoid invasion) and the more states hold them the more trigger happy people might get, particularly if they don’t have the US looking over their shoulder.
It seems incredibly likely to me that the EU will formally come under the UK/French nuclear umbrella in the coming years, and I expect covert work on a Ukrainian nuclear program to start pretty much on day one post-deal.
We shouldn’t scare ourselves over what remains a small risk, but the world is going to get more dangerous.
Boris Johnson, I'm looking at you.
What do you do when letter volumes decline from 20bn a year in 2005 to roughly 6bn now (and decline is still10% a year) ?
Sorry, I've just leaked the new US position...
I replied to this
"@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing"
comment
'in fact' you seem to be incapable of sticking to the facts.
It is all reactive, often in response to the latest sllight, or the next person coming into the room. There are no goals apart from the enrichment of the oligarchy around them, demonstrative cruelty to everyone who is "out", and feeding the cult of the leader.
I would be happy for anyone to provide me a counter example that doesn't fit that obviously over-simplistic set of drivers, and I'd alter my view.
ETA: and Project 2025 is that simplistic set of drivers written down with examples.
Contrary to some comments on here Kemi did make a statement yesterday fully backing Zelensky and Ukraine and demanding Starmer increases defence spending
However, she is in office for the year so unlikely she will be replaced soon but my regret is Cleverly trying to be too clever in the ballot and missing out, as he would be a good choice
Everything is uncertain and who knows what may happen in the next few months and even a conservative mp retiring and giving Mordaunt a road back to the Commons
The one thing that yesterday did do is to put Farage, Tice and Reform on the spot and they have been remarkably silent
A vote for Reform is a vote for Trump - Putin
Is that a lot?
(I don't know.)
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
The Birth of German(y)
https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/the-birth-of-germany
This week is Germany’s elections, so it’s a good time to understand the country better.
You can’t undertand the country until you understand the unique way in which is was created. What is that?
Why is the country so rich and powerful?
Why so federal?
Why is Berlin the capital?
What lies in Germany’s future?
Why can we still see the old East/West partition on random maps of today?
Today, we’re going to start with the most important one: What is the weird way in which Germany was formed, and why does it define it to this day?..
I'm becoming increasingly confused ...... perhaps it's my age ...... over whether wild and outrageous statements attributed to Trump are actually made by him or by others.
It doesn't exist.
One of the interesting things about all the deliberate chaos being unleashed will be watching how (un)popular it becomes over the next few months, as those who voted for Trump begin to appreciate its consequences.
Here's another small example.
Oops: Trump-Musk Cuts Just Wrecked an NIH Org Championed by GOPers
Republicans once lavished praise on an NIH center that deals with Alzheimer’s. Donald Trump and Elon Musk are hobbling it. What will those Republicans say now?
https://newrepublic.com/article/191702/trump-musk-national-institutes-health-wrecked
I suspect it isn’t though - the concern I’m hearing is that people will stop spending as their fear the medium term so want cash savings in case of problems
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
One is a shop, one is a stall in an indoor market, and one is the fish counter at Morrisons. Plus a couple of fish vans who come from I think Grimsby. And I think a farm shop with a specialism.
Butchers - probably 4-6 fairly close.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
*Assuming you owned the villa and were not one of the many slaves, or the down-trodden masses, obviously.
I've thought since 2016 or so that the real long game here is to end up with a "northern alliance" of mostly white, mostly Christian(ish) powers across the northern hemisphere or, as we might be calling it by the 2050s, the "habitable zone". The aim would then be to string a drone fleet across the Med and across Russia's Asian borders to keep absolutely everyone else out, with a more-or-less neocolonial resource-extraction approach to the rest of the world. Trump's Mexico wall is just the start.
For this to work, the EU either has to be enlisted to the project, or near-fatally-undermined. Either option could be viable, but for the former to work you really need right-wing politicians to be able to win power in major EU countries, and for the EU to switch to following their agenda. This is not entirely without precedent in EU history, as the EU has oscillated between being a social democratic protectionist bloc and a neoliberaler-than-thou free market, and the assumption that the EU has an inherent ideological preference have turned out to be hollow.
Right now, most right-wing parties are somewhat anti-EU, but only in the sense that they are not in control of it. But it has not escaped the attention of Meloni that the build-the-wall-in-the-Med approach only really works if it's coordinated at something like the EU level, which is why she's much more pro-EU than one might otherwise expect. Frontex would probably be the agency that winds up operating the Mediterranean drone fleet, after all.
The question is whether Trump is genuinely barmy or having a 'senior moment'? Unfortunately, I remember him suggesting oral domestos as a treatment for COVID.
Biden, dementia and all, might have been better, but the Democrats tried to keep him going too long. But at least, they knew he was unsafe, and they wouldn't have let him have free rein. The poor Republicans can't make any excuses.
I was hoping he was scamming Ukraine over the valuable minerals they may have, but his ignorance and arrogance suggests not.
It's going to be a long four years but he does look like a walking heart attack, and Vance might have learned his lesson. We can always offer to let them back into being our colony if they pay the 250 years of tea-tax they owe.
(UK support is currently about half that afaics.)
That was pushed by Kaya Kallas when Estonian PM, and she is now High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
But apparently it’s still got a few months left
https://theconversation.com/farewell-to-smithfield-how-past-present-commerce-and-culture-collide-in-londons-900-year-old-meat-market-247123
Anyway, we are where we are, and at least Patel and Kemi seem to be getting it - presume some of the more sensible MPs have been burning their ears.
We all have to hope that Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron manage to get somewhere in Washington. A lot will now rest on the new German chancellor who we have to hope is an improvement on Sholtz and Merkel.
I truly hope the Trump-enablers and their fellow-travellers end up in the fieriest circle of hell.
The 20% of voters who currently love Trump are pretty much the Reform base and I can only see that base shrinking as Trump's term progresses. His comments on Zelensky I think have shocked a lot of people, it makes any deal between the Conservatives and Reform far less likely to happen.
If Reform are still a thing in 4 years time, tactical voting against them at a GE will be ferocious. The idea of Reform forming part of any government after 2029 has receded considerably this week
But I don't see where I have lied about your posts?
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
21m
So it's strange. We're constantly told that Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, and Rupert Lowe are "straight talkers". They've had a lot to say about Putin in the past. They've had a lot to say about Trump in the past. But suddenly they seem to have lost their voices. Why is that.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1892514800430641637
I like Cleverly and he has the big confident persona that fits london - and my god his positive energy would be a massive welcome change - after the dreary joyless teetotal whining of Khan
He’s not right for Tory leader but I’d vote for him as mayor tomorrow
Of course we can build relationships with a post Trump led US but for now Trump's US is arguably even less of an ally than China
The only people Trump respects are people who see the world like he does, and they are almost all terrible leaders of autocratic states. He sure as hell does not respect people who feel constrained by law or morality, or people who think we can work together (those people are suckers in Trump's view).
She could also not yet be clear about her personal positioning.
Although TBF she was giving a speech to ARC, which is a Paul Marshall / Jordan Peterson setup. And would want to meet their concerns.
This makes me recall the story of Phil Tippett, who was an expert in stop-motion animation and submitted a bid for Jurassic Park using stop-motion dinosaurs. While he was there he saw the other bids using computer animation. Afterwards he abandoned physical animation and moved to CGI, creating the bugs in Starship Troopers.
This kind of feels like that moment...
"How de-aging in movies got so good": Vox, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBc38VjI7NU
*1 I don't know if it's a LLM. Probably not?
But it's hard to see what the cake-and-eat-it message is here. I'm sure that most Reform voters are decent patriots who don't like what Putin is doing to Ukraine. (And the polling in the header reflects that.) But a decent slice of their supporters and flip knows who in the background rather approve.
The place round here that still has the best outdoor market is Chesterfield, which has perhaps 100-140 stalls 3 days a week (Tue,Fri,Sat).
https://www.google.com/maps/search/chesterfield+marketplace/@53.2355315,-1.4292181,104m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==
Yes, I know both (a) and (b) are contradictory, but I don’t think that will bother Farage. He just plays off grievance. He’ll likely blame closer relations to Europe for (b).
This is mad.
The parallels to a certain other demagogue who used to give lengthy tirades about how sovereign states actually should be his is obvious.
Badenoch is as irrelevant now as Starmer was when Russia invaded Ukraine in Feb 2022. She's put out a statement that is utterly correct, yet some seem to think she is critically important and must do something else.
These are dangerous times for Starmer. People seem to have a short memory about the outcomes of the 'cost of living crisis', not just here, but abroad.
That crisis was partly blamed on the Ukraine war. This could be part two, potentially much worse, and the politicians holding the baton, didn't last.
Economically, Labour have placed us in a dreadful position to face this crisis and their policy on energy is going to come under huge pressure. I'm not hopeful they have the ability to deal with this.
Incoming Rover P6, Morgan, Morris Traveller.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/4voBDhHHy5msBxRn6
The Nigel and the Leeanderthal Man would approve.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Both the countries and individuals involved were soon out of the picture. The idea that the assurances are somehow inherited by new governments is a little odd. That's why we write these things down and make them official.
"I want to reassure you that none of the bill increase will go towards executive director bonuses. Customers do not pay for bonuses; they are entirely funded by our investors."
Uh-huh.
Or thinks he can
Right now the most powerful nation on the planet is being managed for the Lolz, by the most powerful person allied with the richest person.
I said we had agreed to buy the house for £5.00 and the owner sort of said, go fuck yourself. So rude. My lawyer went all the way there and came back empty handed. I will resurect this deal, will offer £6.00.
When I went to Centre Parcs (Thetford Forest) a few years ago, there were lots of somewhat overweight kids and adults in the pool.