Nazi salutes are getting normalised in the US now. I wonder if we'll get to a stage where not doing one sees you either primaried or losing your federal contract?
It's like we're living in the flashbacks of a zombie film, where you see the first news reports of mysterious new disease.
And then the feckers try to gaslight the world by saying that it wasn't a Nazi salute.
A good slice of this board thinks posters are being hysterical when they point out that politicians who support the AfD, Putin, use Nazi language and make Nazi salutes might err, be a bit Nazi.
It’s not a particularly helpful term - because it immediately makes people think about toothbrush-moustaches and German dictators.
It’s the same with “fascist”. The left abused the terms for so long to try and demonise their moderate opponents that they no longer have the power to shock.
Thank goodness we have the right’s measured use of commie, Trot and Stalinist as an example of restraint.
For some reason Stalinist doesn't seem to be as common a derogatory label as the others in my experience. Is that because people associate Stalin and communism more strongly, or because Trotskyite groups were more prominent in the West among loony marxist groups?
(I'm assuming here there are non-loony marxist groups, which is perhaps over generous, like assuming there were moderate BNP branches).
I have no idea what you mean by loony or marxist, but in western countries there were orders of magnitude more members of Stalinist parties than there were of Trotskyist ones. The largest of the former tended to be called things like "Communist Party of [Country]" or "[Country] Communist Party". See Spain, France, Italy, Britain, etc.
Wait till you find out about anti-Bolshevik communism :-)
I had a grand time reading a 'newspaper' I found on a train one time telling me how trotskyites were the real enemies of communism.
It'd all be fascinating from an academic perspective. This is not even close to the total number of similar groups I know.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
JFK once said: “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.”
The same is true of our support for Ukraine. We don’t support Ukraine because it’s easy, because a Russian collapse is just round the corner. We support Ukraine because it is the right thing to do, to stand against a war of aggression and authoritarianism, even if victory is difficult to achieve.
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
I go along with this to some extent. However proportionality needs to apply. If Trump wants to undo NATO then this should be done in a way and timescale that allows and compels consideration of Europe and Canada's way forward.
Yes, I agree Europe has been at fault too.
Trump's approach makes good sense if, and only if, you decide that the world is and should be self interested well armed mercantileist power blocs with no particular interest in rights, democracy or the prosperity of others. The blocs are: Americas, Russia and the east, China, India, Rest of the West.
However, one word shows Trump's world is more complex: Israel.
I think the war itself is indefensible, and a very black mark on Putin's record. That said, the case for arming Ukraine indefinitely rests on either (1) believing that if Ukraine is seen to have lost then other Russian incursions will follow or (2) that there is no civilised alternative. The problem is that huge numbers of lives are being lost for what has become essentially a border war, and we aren't offering any alternative except for Russia saying sorry, we'll stop and pay damages. That's a formula for the war continuing for years, quite possibly ending with a Ukrainian defeat.
I've very little time for Trump, but the effort to see if there's a basis for a settlement seems worthwhile. If the condition is substantial border defences for the remaining 80% of Ukraine and other countries thought to be at risk, fine, and if it costs more money, we should be prepared to pay it. However, the principle that no boundaries can ever be changed, regardless of the wishes of the current population, and it's worth any number of casualities and indefinite war to prevent it, seems to me wrong.
Yes, one can argue that when the original population of the easstern provinces was asked, a (relatively slender) majority said they wanted to stay with Ukraine. That's a reasonable consideration, but not the only one. And the question "what would you do?" seems to me a reasonable one, to which the response "support the war continuing indefinitely" is unsatisfactory.
I hesitate to write this, as it generates hostility at a personal level which I can do without, given my lack of influence over the outcome. But you asked...
The post-WW2 international rules based order is that borders cannot be changed by force. They *can* be changed by the wishes of the current population, contrary to how you put it above.
In the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum, the eastern provinces voted overwhelmingly for independence from Russia. Luhansk was at 84%, as was Donetsk. Kharkiv was 86%. These are not “relatively slender” majorities.
A lot of people buy the argument that all Russian speakers at heart want to be part of Russia. Having conceded that point, mentally, it's easy to then move to a 'Well invasion is wrong, buuuuuut' position. That the people in the east have spent 10+ years living with it without all committing seppuku makes a cold view of accepting the status quo much easier (even I would say I was never confident Ukraine would be able/permitted to regain those areas - possibly in a best case, but never Crimea) whilst softening the mental low that it is such a cold calculation.
By that logic Ireland deserves re-occupation by British forces as they are English speakers, and a number of Commonwealth countries too. If language is destiny, we have our work cut out.
He's very critical of Russia and rather sympathetic to Zelensky in the interview, but his bottom line is (as mine is) what is the UK's interest in Ukraine?
The same as our interest in Belgium when fascists invaded.
It is in our own self interest that Putin loses, badly, and is seen to lose on the World stage.
I think you're confusing your World Wars.
Yes WW2 was the one where Poland started it by provoking Germany.
(Is it Saturday already?)
Germany and Russia. You'd have thought they'd have more sense.
Yes, though some blame must go to the British and French for provocatively allying themselves with the Poles. What choice did it leave Hitler and Stalin?
There is the question of whether Hitler would have been allowed to bank his gains if he had stopped after the Anschluss with Austria and Czechoslovakia.
And whether Hitler could have been quickly defeated if France, with its larger army, had gone into Poland.
Both questions have clear parallels with Russia/Ukraine.
The answer is yes. Had Hitler been satisfied with the Sudetenland, no one would have intervened. But, the Nazis' economy was heading for bankruptcy, by that point. Hitler needed war.
And, the answer to the second is a partial yes. There was no way of sending troops to Poland, but an invasion of SW Germany was quite feasible. Unfortunately, the Allied Supreme Commander was an incompetent, who thought that radios were evil.
Hardly reliable evidence but listening to some Americans on a Singapore River Cruise this afternoon, my sense is they like Trump not because they agree with him but because he’s doing something or at least that’s the perception.
I’ve never been a fan of the old “we must do something, this is something, let’s do it” school of governance. Trump seems dynamic in contrast to Biden, he seems to have ideas in a way Biden didn’t and I get the appeal of that in a time of uncertainty and malaise.
That doesn’t mean I think he’s right but those seeking a response to the new breed of political disruptors have to accept the popularity of disruption, the attraction of change, the allure of risk taking.
Playing it safe, kicking the can down the road because trying to solve the huge problems of modern society and Government is too much effort simply doesn’t work any more and the vacuum has been filled by the disruptors.
There may be something in what you say, though it is weird as parties and politicians of the 'old' school do still overpromise and make grandiose declarations of intent.
But you seem to need to have the subtlety of a blue whale making love to a sturgeon in order to get through to we the public's thick skulls thesedays.
Nazi salutes are getting normalised in the US now. I wonder if we'll get to a stage where not doing one sees you either primaried or losing your federal contract?
It's like we're living in the flashbacks of a zombie film, where you see the first news reports of mysterious new disease.
And then the feckers try to gaslight the world by saying that it wasn't a Nazi salute.
A good slice of this board thinks posters are being hysterical when they point out that politicians who support the AfD, Putin, use Nazi language and make Nazi salutes might err, be a bit Nazi.
Indeed, on which topic Reform's dilemma could be a fork in the road. SFAICS its support base, as opposed to the powers on and behind the throne are the sort of people who watch reruns of Dad's Army, apart from those who find it a bit too intellectual.
WTf is wrong with watching re-runs of Dads Army. It’s an excellent, well written, well observed and characterised comedy accessible to all.
Nothing at all. Many of them are masterpieces. Their appeal is massive. I love them. That's the point. Not many potential Reform voters are going to stick for ever with a party if it goes down the rabbit hole of apologists for Nazi salutes or Europe's invaders. Farage could easily struggle here unless he wants to be a proper normal rightish social democrat + NATO or its replacement(?) + low migration + bash welfare for the wrong sort + fantasy economics party.
So what’s it to be:
- We’re all doomed, or - Don’t panic?
Rubbish.
We are all doomed. Form an orderly queue for the PB Panic. Please remember to share the Jaffa cakes and help people to tea and coffee from the urns at the end table.
Also, can we have some volunteers to stay behind, after The Panic, to fold the tables and put the chairs back in the cupboard? The caretaker gets upset if he can’t run the floor polisher on Sunday afternoon.
As an observation, PB does hysteria brilliantly.
It reveals much about my own prejudices that I am enjoying our current bout of hysteria (the Nazification of USA) far more than I enjoyed the last few (trans women rampaging through toilets and/or a tiny set of islands somewhere revealing the nefarious, traitorous plot of Starmer to hand our whole nation over to the Chinese in exchange for permission to have to US make our decisions over video call or somesuch).
Whenever women's concerns are raised on here, they are invariably described as "hysteria", often by the very people who condemn others for being anti-woke (because, of course, calling women hysterical is very "woke").
But oddly when those concerns reach the courts those raising them win. There was another such victory in the Court of Appeal this week - not that anyone here noticed or thought it worthy of comment, what with the James Bond franchise being so much more important.
What can possibly explain this discrepancy between court judgments and the self-assured - but usually ignorant conviction - of PB commentators?
The latter is really rather Trumpian, which may well explain why he is so politically successful. The hateful bastard.
It's like Tobias Ellwood praising the Taliban for bringing "stability" to Afghanistan. The fact that 51% of the population are being treated somewhat worse than livestock never registered with him.
Or, more likely, it registered with him. But he just thought it didn't matter. Just as it does not matter to English cricketers or the ICC, which is refusing to fund the Afghani women refugees cricket team.
Women are treated like this because, bluntly, if something does not matter to men or affect them, they think it does not matter at all.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
JFK once said: “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.”
The same is true of our support for Ukraine. We don’t support Ukraine because it’s easy, because a Russian collapse is just round the corner. We support Ukraine because it is the right thing to do, to stand against a war of aggression and authoritarianism, even if victory is difficult to achieve.
Most of all: if we do not stand against a war of aggression and authoritarianism now, we shall have to do so in the future, from a much less advantageous position.
Nazi salutes are getting normalised in the US now. I wonder if we'll get to a stage where not doing one sees you either primaried or losing your federal contract?
It's like we're living in the flashbacks of a zombie film, where you see the first news reports of mysterious new disease.
And then the feckers try to gaslight the world by saying that it wasn't a Nazi salute.
A good slice of this board thinks posters are being hysterical when they point out that politicians who support the AfD, Putin, use Nazi language and make Nazi salutes might err, be a bit Nazi.
It’s not a particularly helpful term - because it immediately makes people think about toothbrush-moustaches and German dictators.
It’s the same with “fascist”. The left abused the terms for so long to try and demonise their moderate opponents that they no longer have the power to shock.
Thank goodness we have the right’s measured use of commie, Trot and Stalinist as an example of restraint.
For some reason Stalinist doesn't seem to be as common a derogatory label as the others in my experience. Is that because people associate Stalin and communism more strongly, or because Trotskyite groups were more prominent in the West among loony marxist groups?
(I'm assuming here there are non-loony marxist groups, which is perhaps over generous, like assuming there were moderate BNP branches).
I think anyone with half a brain is Marxist to some extent. Marx wrote widely and compellingly on many subjects, just as eg Hayek did.
It's the political ideologies resulting from Marxist thought that are so damaging, not least the Communist manifesto, which understandably discredits Marx's other work.
It took Marx 150 pages to get to terms with the fact that than employee creates more value for there employer than they receive in wages. Well of course they do, or else they wouldn't have a job. And yet Marx found this situation problematic.
So overthrow the oppressors...
...then get back to the factory and get back to work.
Marx has duped almost as many people as that prophet fellow from the Middle East.
I feel like I should read the actual material one day as most of the pronouncements seem rather trite (or perhaps they seem that way after 150 years of them being widely circulated), with the more critical issue being the political philosophies that follow don't appear to ever have worked (without heavy modulation) in practice.
The Economist this week is pretty uncheery. Summary: Europe alone. Needs single envoy to speak for it with USA and Russia. France and UK need to agree Europe's nuclear shield. Defence spending to rise to 4-5%, an extra 300bn Euros. Cut welfare. This is "Europe's worst nightmare".
Yup, there's no more room for higher taxes, it has to come out of welfare. We pay too many people too much money to sit at home and do nothing.
A shift from welfare spending to defence spending is also a shift from spending on the old to spending on the young and from spending on non-workers to spending on workers.
I think that's a bit optimistic. From my limited experience working at Westland Helicopters back in the day, defence spending tends to only trickle to workers as the horrendously expensive kit dams the flow rather.
Certainly, but it all helps:
Britain's biggest defence firm, BAE Systems, has announced the creation of 50 new jobs as part of a £25m investment in Sheffield.
The company said it would open a new 94,000 sq ft (8,732 sq m)artillery development and production facility in the city in 2025.
It said the site would house a state-of-the-art factory which would specialise in artillery expertise.
At the other end of the scale are the 15k employed by BAe at Barrow.
It is generally recognised that military spending has the worst GDP multiplier amongst government departments at about 0.5. Arguments to expand the economy by military spending are a nonsense. The benefits of such spending are outside economics.
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
I go along with this to some extent. However proportionality needs to apply. If Trump wants to undo NATO then this should be done in a way and timescale that allows and compels consideration of Europe and Canada's way forward.
Yes, I agree Europe has been at fault too.
Trump's approach makes good sense if, and only if, you decide that the world is and should be self interested well armed mercantileist power blocs with no particular interest in rights, democracy or the prosperity of others. The blocs are: Americas, Russia and the east, China, India, Rest of the West.
However, one word shows Trump's world is more complex: Israel.
I think the war itself is indefensible, and a very black mark on Putin's record. That said, the case for arming Ukraine indefinitely rests on either (1) believing that if Ukraine is seen to have lost then other Russian incursions will follow or (2) that there is no civilised alternative. The problem is that huge numbers of lives are being lost for what has become essentially a border war, and we aren't offering any alternative except for Russia saying sorry, we'll stop and pay damages. That's a formula for the war continuing for years, quite possibly ending with a Ukrainian defeat.
I've very little time for Trump, but the effort to see if there's a basis for a settlement seems worthwhile. If the condition is substantial border defences for the remaining 80% of Ukraine and other countries thought to be at risk, fine, and if it costs more money, we should be prepared to pay it. However, the principle that no boundaries can ever be changed, regardless of the wishes of the current population, and it's worth any number of casualities and indefinite war to prevent it, seems to me wrong.
Yes, one can argue that when the original population of the easstern provinces was asked, a (relatively slender) majority said they wanted to stay with Ukraine. That's a reasonable consideration, but not the only one. And the question "what would you do?" seems to me a reasonable one, to which the response "support the war continuing indefinitely" is unsatisfactory.
I hesitate to write this, as it generates hostility at a personal level which I can do without, given my lack of influence over the outcome. But you asked...
The post-WW2 international rules based order is that borders cannot be changed by force. They *can* be changed by the wishes of the current population, contrary to how you put it above.
In the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum, the eastern provinces voted overwhelmingly for independence from Russia. Luhansk was at 84%, as was Donetsk. Kharkiv was 86%. These are not “relatively slender” majorities.
I suspect Zelenskyy will sign. It's all about the deal for Donald Trump and Zelenskyy knows it.
What evidence do you have to back your idea up. The offer Trump is making is the biggest land grab in history...
No evidence hence "suspect". We'll know soon enough. Trump may be a racketeer but Ukraine depends on America, if not to provide actual aid, at least not to actively set out to destroy the country. The minerals deal is a long term one - it makes no difference in the short term but Ukraine has a critical short term problem that Zelenskyy needs to deal with.
To put it another way. The threats work because Trump knows Ukraine is in a desperate situation and so exploits it. Zelenskyy needs to get as much as he can in return.
"I don't remember anyone saying when the Americans pulled out of Vietnam - let's send lots of British troops to replace them"
Fundamentally they are different
Vietnam was a civil war / revolution in which China and the US interfered.
Ukraine is a straightforward case of an invasion of a former Soviet country by Russia. The Russian leader has made clear his desire to conquer every other former Soviet territory.
If we believed Putin would be content to stop at Ukraine Europe would be much more relaxed. But we don’t and he won’t.
Stopping him here is critical. We should have done it in Georgia or Crimea but we were asleep on our watch.
The Communists were set on world revolution - their expansionist aims and activities even after Stalin were vastly bigger than Putin's.
Putin's Russia is occupying eastern Ukraine (since 2022, with certain parts since 2014), parts of Georgia (since 2008), and is holding on to four Japanese islands since 1945.
Didn't you forget the parts of Germany, Poland, and Finland that are under the iron heel of Russian occupation, funnily enough also since 1945?
Nazi salutes are getting normalised in the US now. I wonder if we'll get to a stage where not doing one sees you either primaried or losing your federal contract?
It's like we're living in the flashbacks of a zombie film, where you see the first news reports of mysterious new disease.
And then the feckers try to gaslight the world by saying that it wasn't a Nazi salute.
A good slice of this board thinks posters are being hysterical when they point out that politicians who support the AfD, Putin, use Nazi language and make Nazi salutes might err, be a bit Nazi.
It’s not a particularly helpful term - because it immediately makes people think about toothbrush-moustaches and German dictators.
It’s the same with “fascist”. The left abused the terms for so long to try and demonise their moderate opponents that they no longer have the power to shock.
Thank goodness we have the right’s measured use of commie, Trot and Stalinist as an example of restraint.
For some reason Stalinist doesn't seem to be as common a derogatory label as the others in my experience. Is that because people associate Stalin and communism more strongly, or because Trotskyite groups were more prominent in the West among loony marxist groups?
(I'm assuming here there are non-loony marxist groups, which is perhaps over generous, like assuming there were moderate BNP branches).
I think anyone with half a brain is Marxist to some extent. Marx wrote widely and compellingly on many subjects, just as eg Hayek did.
It's the political ideologies resulting from Marxist thought that are so damaging, not least the Communist manifesto, which understandably discredits Marx's other work.
It took Marx 150 pages to get to terms with the fact that than employee creates more value for there employer than they receive in wages. Well of course they do, or else they wouldn't have a job. And yet Marx found this situation problematic.
So overthrow the oppressors...
...then get back to the factory and get back to work.
Marx has duped almost as many people as that prophet fellow from the Middle East.
Aiui and I am not an historian like @ydoethur, is the popularity of Marxism was that even if the politics was rubbish, it did explain history, and it did so using economic and sociological analysis. History was no longer just a dull list of barely connected regnal dates and battles. Now (well, 100 years ago) there was a new theoretical framework for understanding historical events, and it worked, and perhaps even predicting current developments.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
That its working so well is why they are so desperate to stop it.
The economic and military ruin of Russia terrifies many people.
Then Russia should pull their forces out of Ukraine.
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
I go along with this to some extent. However proportionality needs to apply. If Trump wants to undo NATO then this should be done in a way and timescale that allows and compels consideration of Europe and Canada's way forward.
Yes, I agree Europe has been at fault too.
Trump's approach makes good sense if, and only if, you decide that the world is and should be self interested well armed mercantileist power blocs with no particular interest in rights, democracy or the prosperity of others. The blocs are: Americas, Russia and the east, China, India, Rest of the West.
However, one word shows Trump's world is more complex: Israel.
I think the war itself is indefensible, and a very black mark on Putin's record. That said, the case for arming Ukraine indefinitely rests on either (1) believing that if Ukraine is seen to have lost then other Russian incursions will follow or (2) that there is no civilised alternative. The problem is that huge numbers of lives are being lost for what has become essentially a border war, and we aren't offering any alternative except for Russia saying sorry, we'll stop and pay damages. That's a formula for the war continuing for years, quite possibly ending with a Ukrainian defeat.
I've very little time for Trump, but the effort to see if there's a basis for a settlement seems worthwhile. If the condition is substantial border defences for the remaining 80% of Ukraine and other countries thought to be at risk, fine, and if it costs more money, we should be prepared to pay it. However, the principle that no boundaries can ever be changed, regardless of the wishes of the current population, and it's worth any number of casualities and indefinite war to prevent it, seems to me wrong.
Yes, one can argue that when the original population of the easstern provinces was asked, a (relatively slender) majority said they wanted to stay with Ukraine. That's a reasonable consideration, but not the only one. And the question "what would you do?" seems to me a reasonable one, to which the response "support the war continuing indefinitely" is unsatisfactory.
I hesitate to write this, as it generates hostility at a personal level which I can do without, given my lack of influence over the outcome. But you asked...
The post-WW2 international rules based order is that borders cannot be changed by force. They *can* be changed by the wishes of the current population, contrary to how you put it above.
In the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum, the eastern provinces voted overwhelmingly for independence from Russia. Luhansk was at 84%, as was Donetsk. Kharkiv was 86%. These are not “relatively slender” majorities.
A lot of people buy the argument that all Russian speakers at heart want to be part of Russia. Having conceded that point, mentally, it's easy to then move to a 'Well invasion is wrong, buuuuuut' position. That the people in the east have spent 10+ years living with it without all committing seppuku makes a cold view of accepting the status quo much easier (even I would say I was never confident Ukraine would be able/permitted to regain those areas - possibly in a best case, but never Crimea) whilst softening the mental low that it is such a cold calculation.
By that logic Ireland deserves re-occupation by British forces as they are English speakers, and a number of Commonwealth countries too. If language is destiny, we have our work cut out.
Naturally. But people (and I'm not naiive enough to think I've avoided this on every issue) are often happy to support reasoning for an area away from them which they'd never apply closer to home. Accepting spheres of influence is another.
Ireland is a good example - there are good reasons to support unification, but sometimes people simplistically leave it as 'NI and ROI on the same island and thus it should be unified' kind of argument. Something I doubt would be argued by the same people to unify (in more direct sense) England, Scotland, and Wales, or other places in the world where islands are divided politically.
I suspect Zelenskyy will sign. It's all about the deal for Donald Trump and Zelenskyy knows it.
What evidence do you have to back your idea up. The offer Trump is making is the biggest land grab in history...
No evidence hence "suspect". We'll know soon enough. Trump may be a racketeer but Ukraine depends on America, if not to provide actual aid, at least not to actively set out to destroy the country. The minerals deal is a long term one - it makes no difference in the short term but Ukraine has a critical short term problem that Zelenskyy needs to deal with.
To put it another way. The threats work because Trump knows Ukraine is in a desperate situation and so exploits it. Zelenskyy needs to get as much as he can in return.
We don't even know what the draft deal(s) are yet. This could well just be a Stalin-Hitler carve-up of Poland. "Say, Vlad, if you keep the Donbass and Crimea, we'll force Ukraine to give us the resources in the rest. We'll keep them under our thumb."
I'm still half-expecting the USA to go in on Russia's side. "Ukraine are being unreasonable in rejecting our best-in-the-world peace deal, so the only way to get peace is to force it. And I promised the American people peace. It's just been a long day..."
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
He has been right (if you set aside his vocalisations) about many things. Securing Canada and Greenland means securing the NorthWest Passage, which is of strategic importance as the icecap melts. Panama secures another passage. Treating Canada and Mexico like shit secures his supplies (foolishly, since they'll just sell to somebody else, but I don't think he gets that). To win in Ukraine requires too much time and money and he doesn't care so fuck it: he'll impose a coerced peace.
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
The Economist this week is pretty uncheery. Summary: Europe alone. Needs single envoy to speak for it with USA and Russia. France and UK need to agree Europe's nuclear shield. Defence spending to rise to 4-5%, an extra 300bn Euros. Cut welfare. This is "Europe's worst nightmare".
Yup, there's no more room for higher taxes, it has to come out of welfare. We pay too many people too much money to sit at home and do nothing.
A shift from welfare spending to defence spending is also a shift from spending on the old to spending on the young and from spending on non-workers to spending on workers.
I think that's a bit optimistic. From my limited experience working at Westland Helicopters back in the day, defence spending tends to only trickle to workers as the horrendously expensive kit dams the flow rather.
Certainly, but it all helps:
Britain's biggest defence firm, BAE Systems, has announced the creation of 50 new jobs as part of a £25m investment in Sheffield.
The company said it would open a new 94,000 sq ft (8,732 sq m)artillery development and production facility in the city in 2025.
It said the site would house a state-of-the-art factory which would specialise in artillery expertise.
At the other end of the scale are the 15k employed by BAe at Barrow.
It is generally recognised that military spending has the worst GDP multiplier amongst government departments at about 0.5. Arguments to expand the economy by military spending are a nonsense. The benefits of such spending are outside economics.
Yet its often said that it was rearmament in the 1940s that finally ended the US depression.
Though overall I wold agree with you.
My initial point is that it would be a shift in spending from those who do not work to those who do work.
Nazi salutes are getting normalised in the US now. I wonder if we'll get to a stage where not doing one sees you either primaried or losing your federal contract?
It's like we're living in the flashbacks of a zombie film, where you see the first news reports of mysterious new disease.
And then the feckers try to gaslight the world by saying that it wasn't a Nazi salute.
A good slice of this board thinks posters are being hysterical when they point out that politicians who support the AfD, Putin, use Nazi language and make Nazi salutes might err, be a bit Nazi.
It’s not a particularly helpful term - because it immediately makes people think about toothbrush-moustaches and German dictators.
It’s the same with “fascist”. The left abused the terms for so long to try and demonise their moderate opponents that they no longer have the power to shock.
Thank goodness we have the right’s measured use of commie, Trot and Stalinist as an example of restraint.
For some reason Stalinist doesn't seem to be as common a derogatory label as the others in my experience. Is that because people associate Stalin and communism more strongly, or because Trotskyite groups were more prominent in the West among loony marxist groups?
(I'm assuming here there are non-loony marxist groups, which is perhaps over generous, like assuming there were moderate BNP branches).
I think anyone with half a brain is Marxist to some extent. Marx wrote widely and compellingly on many subjects, just as eg Hayek did.
It's the political ideologies resulting from Marxist thought that are so damaging, not least the Communist manifesto, which understandably discredits Marx's other work.
It took Marx 150 pages to get to terms with the fact that than employee creates more value for there employer than they receive in wages. Well of course they do, or else they wouldn't have a job. And yet Marx found this situation problematic.
So overthrow the oppressors...
...then get back to the factory and get back to work.
Marx has duped almost as many people as that prophet fellow from the Middle East.
I feel like I should read the actual material one day as most of the pronouncements seem rather trite (or perhaps they seem that way after 150 years of them being widely circulated), with the more critical issue being the political philosophies that follow don't appear to ever have worked (without heavy modulation) in practice.
I wouldn't bother with his writing specifically on communism. However, to take just one example of his more compelling ideas, intersectionality (whilst currently a bogeyword for it's role in the culture wars) is imo very obviously a valuable way to consider how people experience relative (lack of) power and it's impacts: https://www.simplypsychology.org/intersectional-theory.html
He's very critical of Russia and rather sympathetic to Zelensky in the interview, but his bottom line is (as mine is) what is the UK's interest in Ukraine?
The same as our interest in Belgium when fascists invaded.
It is in our own self interest that Putin loses, badly, and is seen to lose on the World stage.
I think you're confusing your World Wars.
Yes WW2 was the one where Poland started it by provoking Germany.
(Is it Saturday already?)
Germany and Russia. You'd have thought they'd have more sense.
Yes, though some blame must go to the British and French for provocatively allying themselves with the Poles. What choice did it leave Hitler and Stalin?
There is the question of whether Hitler would have been allowed to bank his gains if he had stopped after the Anschluss with Austria and Czechoslovakia.
And whether Hitler could have been quickly defeated if France, with its larger army, had gone into Poland.
Both questions have clear parallels with Russia/Ukraine.
The answer is yes. Had Hitler been satisfied with the Sudetenland, no one would have intervened. But, the Nazis' economy was heading for bankruptcy, by that point. Hitler needed war.
And, the answer to the second is a partial yes. There was no way of sending troops to Poland, but an invasion of SW Germany was quite feasible. Unfortunately, the Allied Supreme Commander was an incompetent, who thought that radios were evil.
I agree, but I think it goes beyond that.
The French state became a broken reed between the wars, and that was reflected right through society.
'Gen Z will fight' - conscription divides Europe | Ukraine: The Latest | Podcast"
Today, as Donald Trump calls President Zelensky a ‘dictator’, we look at the conundrum facing Europe: to speak out and risk fraying American support, or to stay quiet, and not articulate their sense of betrayal. And, later, we talk about the strategic options available, and dive deeper into the British plans of putting boots on the ground.
Talking about conscription to fight in the east will destroy support for the Ukraine in this country.
Large chunks of the young will reject it and, when middle class parents realise an undergraduate course or a degree won’t be an automatic escape route, you’ll sour their parents on it too.
Did you listen?
Yes I agree - and so do they. It came up because daytime TV had been talking about conscription (they quote the Jeremy Vine programme), presumably as something easy to grab hold of that gets attention.
The view of the team in the studio - 2 of whom have been service in the army and could be liable for call-up under regs aiui, is that conscription was out of modern British tradition (ended finally in the 60s I think) that it would be received badly. And that the forces don't like it because they lose more from having their troops train and babysit than they gain from reluctant conscripts. They discuss the current French version of National Service, which is civilian (iirc).
They also discuss the Finnish system - which does work but it's tied up with Russia being next door and having been invaded in living memory.
They suggest that for the quick phases it is about mobilising reserves. Hamish de Bretton Gordon comments that when he was commanding the Royal Tank Regiment mobilised in peacekeeping / making forces they had around 10-15% reservists.
Here's a couple of deep links with the core of the comment:
I think the one thing this podcast has not grappled with yet is the US willingness to use force with weaker nations throughout its history, and what happens if the US turns hostile and actively seeks to undermine Europe. IMO Trump is quite amoral / self-siloed enough to be capable of both.
I think we will end up with an "intimidate the Russians" force, not a "peacekeeping" force - since the condition of fighting having stopped by mutual consent will not be achieved. Things like air policing will be the cutting edge imo.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Nazi salutes are getting normalised in the US now. I wonder if we'll get to a stage where not doing one sees you either primaried or losing your federal contract?
It's like we're living in the flashbacks of a zombie film, where you see the first news reports of mysterious new disease.
And then the feckers try to gaslight the world by saying that it wasn't a Nazi salute.
A good slice of this board thinks posters are being hysterical when they point out that politicians who support the AfD, Putin, use Nazi language and make Nazi salutes might err, be a bit Nazi.
It’s not a particularly helpful term - because it immediately makes people think about toothbrush-moustaches and German dictators.
It’s the same with “fascist”. The left abused the terms for so long to try and demonise their moderate opponents that they no longer have the power to shock.
Thank goodness we have the right’s measured use of commie, Trot and Stalinist as an example of restraint.
For some reason Stalinist doesn't seem to be as common a derogatory label as the others in my experience. Is that because people associate Stalin and communism more strongly, or because Trotskyite groups were more prominent in the West among loony marxist groups?
(I'm assuming here there are non-loony marxist groups, which is perhaps over generous, like assuming there were moderate BNP branches).
I think anyone with half a brain is Marxist to some extent. Marx wrote widely and compellingly on many subjects, just as eg Hayek did.
It's the political ideologies resulting from Marxist thought that are so damaging, not least the Communist manifesto, which understandably discredits Marx's other work.
It took Marx 150 pages to get to terms with the fact that than employee creates more value for there employer than they receive in wages. Well of course they do, or else they wouldn't have a job. And yet Marx found this situation problematic.
Slaves create a surplus too. Imagine pointing that out. Only an idiot would point out something that's so obvious or problematise it. He even looked like a "prophet from the Middle East", right?
He's very critical of Russia and rather sympathetic to Zelensky in the interview, but his bottom line is (as mine is) what is the UK's interest in Ukraine?
The same as our interest in Belgium when fascists invaded.
It is in our own self interest that Putin loses, badly, and is seen to lose on the World stage.
I think you're confusing your World Wars.
Yes WW2 was the one where Poland started it by provoking Germany.
(Is it Saturday already?)
Germany and Russia. You'd have thought they'd have more sense.
Yes, though some blame must go to the British and French for provocatively allying themselves with the Poles. What choice did it leave Hitler and Stalin?
There is the question of whether Hitler would have been allowed to bank his gains if he had stopped after the Anschluss with Austria and Czechoslovakia.
And whether Hitler could have been quickly defeated if France, with its larger army, had gone into Poland.
Both questions have clear parallels with Russia/Ukraine.
The answer is yes. Had Hitler been satisfied with the Sudetenland, no one would have intervened. But, the Nazis' economy was heading for bankruptcy, by that point. Hitler needed war.
And, the answer to the second is a partial yes. There was no way of sending troops to Poland, but an invasion of SW Germany was quite feasible. Unfortunately, the Allied Supreme Commander was an incompetent, who thought that radios were evil.
Is there evidence that the Allies with their superior (in size anyway) armoured forces would have been any more tactically efficient in offence than they were in defence?
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
I go along with this to some extent. However proportionality needs to apply. If Trump wants to undo NATO then this should be done in a way and timescale that allows and compels consideration of Europe and Canada's way forward.
Yes, I agree Europe has been at fault too.
Trump's approach makes good sense if, and only if, you decide that the world is and should be self interested well armed mercantileist power blocs with no particular interest in rights, democracy or the prosperity of others. The blocs are: Americas, Russia and the east, China, India, Rest of the West.
However, one word shows Trump's world is more complex: Israel.
I think the war itself is indefensible, and a very black mark on Putin's record. That said, the case for arming Ukraine indefinitely rests on either (1) believing that if Ukraine is seen to have lost then other Russian incursions will follow or (2) that there is no civilised alternative. The problem is that huge numbers of lives are being lost for what has become essentially a border war, and we aren't offering any alternative except for Russia saying sorry, we'll stop and pay damages. That's a formula for the war continuing for years, quite possibly ending with a Ukrainian defeat.
I've very little time for Trump, but the effort to see if there's a basis for a settlement seems worthwhile. If the condition is substantial border defences for the remaining 80% of Ukraine and other countries thought to be at risk, fine, and if it costs more money, we should be prepared to pay it. However, the principle that no boundaries can ever be changed, regardless of the wishes of the current population, and it's worth any number of casualities and indefinite war to prevent it, seems to me wrong.
Yes, one can argue that when the original population of the easstern provinces was asked, a (relatively slender) majority said they wanted to stay with Ukraine. That's a reasonable consideration, but not the only one. And the question "what would you do?" seems to me a reasonable one, to which the response "support the war continuing indefinitely" is unsatisfactory.
I hesitate to write this, as it generates hostility at a personal level which I can do without, given my lack of influence over the outcome. But you asked...
The post-WW2 international rules based order is that borders cannot be changed by force. They *can* be changed by the wishes of the current population, contrary to how you put it above.
In the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum, the eastern provinces voted overwhelmingly for independence from Russia. Luhansk was at 84%, as was Donetsk. Kharkiv was 86%. These are not “relatively slender” majorities.
A lot of people buy the argument that all Russian speakers at heart want to be part of Russia. Having conceded that point, mentally, it's easy to then move to a 'Well invasion is wrong, buuuuuut' position. That the people in the east have spent 10+ years living with it without all committing seppuku makes a cold view of accepting the status quo much easier (even I would say I was never confident Ukraine would be able/permitted to regain those areas - possibly in a best case, but never Crimea) whilst softening the mental low that it is such a cold calculation.
"That the people in the east have spent 10+ years living with it without all committing seppuku"
I'd just make the point that the Russia-backed regimes in LPR and DPR were *very* nasty over those ten years. The stories coming out of them were horrific. The same - and worse - would happen to the rest of Ukraine if Putin wins it.
Eternal damnation on anyone who wants that for Ukraine, or Estonia, Latvia...
Nazi salutes are getting normalised in the US now. I wonder if we'll get to a stage where not doing one sees you either primaried or losing your federal contract?
It's like we're living in the flashbacks of a zombie film, where you see the first news reports of mysterious new disease.
And then the feckers try to gaslight the world by saying that it wasn't a Nazi salute.
A good slice of this board thinks posters are being hysterical when they point out that politicians who support the AfD, Putin, use Nazi language and make Nazi salutes might err, be a bit Nazi.
It’s not a particularly helpful term - because it immediately makes people think about toothbrush-moustaches and German dictators.
It’s the same with “fascist”. The left abused the terms for so long to try and demonise their moderate opponents that they no longer have the power to shock.
Thank goodness we have the right’s measured use of commie, Trot and Stalinist as an example of restraint.
For some reason Stalinist doesn't seem to be as common a derogatory label as the others in my experience. Is that because people associate Stalin and communism more strongly, or because Trotskyite groups were more prominent in the West among loony marxist groups?
(I'm assuming here there are non-loony marxist groups, which is perhaps over generous, like assuming there were moderate BNP branches).
I think anyone with half a brain is Marxist to some extent. Marx wrote widely and compellingly on many subjects, just as eg Hayek did.
It's the political ideologies resulting from Marxist thought that are so damaging, not least the Communist manifesto, which understandably discredits Marx's other work.
It took Marx 150 pages to get to terms with the fact that than employee creates more value for there employer than they receive in wages. Well of course they do, or else they wouldn't have a job. And yet Marx found this situation problematic.
So overthrow the oppressors...
...then get back to the factory and get back to work.
Marx has duped almost as many people as that prophet fellow from the Middle East.
I feel like I should read the actual material one day as most of the pronouncements seem rather trite (or perhaps they seem that way after 150 years of them being widely circulated), with the more critical issue being the political philosophies that follow don't appear to ever have worked (without heavy modulation) in practice.
Das Capital is pretty slow going, but The Communist Manifesto is quite concise and readable. There are several other political classics that are worth reading in the original, Paine's "The Rights of Man" for example.
Sure some of the ideas seem rather prosaic and obvious now, but like all clichés they had to start somewhere, and were radical new ideas in their day.
Nick I don't doubt you are arguing in good faith, and value your perspective.
But where would you factor in the larger cause of this war, which is to signal to Putin that his interference in Eastern Europe is not legitimate? I'm not sure this is 'essentially a border war'.
Second question: whilst I think I agree it is time for a settlement (subject to Ukraine's wishes), do you agree that Trump's approach has inexplicably given all the bargaining power to Putin in a way that is totally unnecessary?
Thank you, Max.
Q1: I think we've already signalled that pretty effectively. Should we go on doing so indefinitely? Q2: I agree - Trump's approach inexplicably hands over key points in advance, ironically making a mockery of claiming to be an expert on "the deal".
It would IMO be reasonable to explore the possibility of peace, without preconditions. If the price proved too high, so be it - war continues until that changes. But contiuing the war indefinitely without a plausible gameplan for ending it seems to me wrong.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
I believe you've pointed out that us increasing defence spending would not have immediate effect, so I don't buy that the idea Russia will probably want to take other places in the future if it can and the West needs to prepare for it even if Russia could not do it now, is too hard to understand or has no logic to it.
Russia could be both too weak to do something right now but having the desire to do it which requires effort now to resist.
I don't see what's contradictory about that, especially when the reason they might be too weak would be because of all the fighting Ukraine has been enabled to do, yet each time it's raised it gets a guffaw from you as though it makes no sense. What am I missing?
That's the settled opinion that's pushed in the Anglophone media but it's not accurate. VVP is a cautious opportunist and while I am sure he'd like NATO out of Eastern Europe he knows it's not happening and asking for it is, what Trotsky would have called, the transitional demand.
He won't bet his arse off on a pair of twos, which is what an invasion of Poland or the Baltics would be. He does things he thinks are low risk with limited downside. Sometimes he calibrates that judgment correctly, as in Crimea, and in the SMO he didn't. We'll never know the kremlinology behind the decision to do it. It's possible that somebody on the General Staff, maybe Dvornikov who was in favour after Syria, convinced him it would be easy. Or maybe he thought he was going to get rolled if he didn't conclusively resolve the status of the Donetsk and Lugansk statelets.
Agreed. So it’s therefore important we make clear to Putin what is low and high risk for him.
What the betting that Trump demands Starmer hand over the Falklands to his Argentinian pal?
Milei isn't demanding them. His position is that the wishes of the people living there should be respected.
Does that matter to Trump, there’s a deal to be done for hydrocarbons.
That's true. The trouble is that once Starmer's friends get involved in the negotiations we'll end up paying Argentina for the privilege of letting the US exploit the resources.
He's very critical of Russia and rather sympathetic to Zelensky in the interview, but his bottom line is (as mine is) what is the UK's interest in Ukraine?
The same as our interest in Belgium when fascists invaded.
It is in our own self interest that Putin loses, badly, and is seen to lose on the World stage.
I think you're confusing your World Wars.
Yes WW2 was the one where Poland started it by provoking Germany.
(Is it Saturday already?)
Germany and Russia. You'd have thought they'd have more sense.
Yes, though some blame must go to the British and French for provocatively allying themselves with the Poles. What choice did it leave Hitler and Stalin?
There is the question of whether Hitler would have been allowed to bank his gains if he had stopped after the Anschluss with Austria and Czechoslovakia.
And whether Hitler could have been quickly defeated if France, with its larger army, had gone into Poland.
Both questions have clear parallels with Russia/Ukraine.
The answer is yes. Had Hitler been satisfied with the Sudetenland, no one would have intervened. But, the Nazis' economy was heading for bankruptcy, by that point. Hitler needed war.
And, the answer to the second is a partial yes. There was no way of sending troops to Poland, but an invasion of SW Germany was quite feasible. Unfortunately, the Allied Supreme Commander was an incompetent, who thought that radios were evil.
Is there evidence that the Allies with their superior (in size anyway) armoured forces would have been any more tactically efficient in offence than they were in defence?
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
I go along with this to some extent. However proportionality needs to apply. If Trump wants to undo NATO then this should be done in a way and timescale that allows and compels consideration of Europe and Canada's way forward.
Yes, I agree Europe has been at fault too.
Trump's approach makes good sense if, and only if, you decide that the world is and should be self interested well armed mercantileist power blocs with no particular interest in rights, democracy or the prosperity of others. The blocs are: Americas, Russia and the east, China, India, Rest of the West.
However, one word shows Trump's world is more complex: Israel.
I think the war itself is indefensible, and a very black mark on Putin's record. That said, the case for arming Ukraine indefinitely rests on either (1) believing that if Ukraine is seen to have lost then other Russian incursions will follow or (2) that there is no civilised alternative. The problem is that huge numbers of lives are being lost for what has become essentially a border war, and we aren't offering any alternative except for Russia saying sorry, we'll stop and pay damages. That's a formula for the war continuing for years, quite possibly ending with a Ukrainian defeat.
I've very little time for Trump, but the effort to see if there's a basis for a settlement seems worthwhile. If the condition is substantial border defences for the remaining 80% of Ukraine and other countries thought to be at risk, fine, and if it costs more money, we should be prepared to pay it. However, the principle that no boundaries can ever be changed, regardless of the wishes of the current population, and it's worth any number of casualities and indefinite war to prevent it, seems to me wrong.
Yes, one can argue that when the original population of the easstern provinces was asked, a (relatively slender) majority said they wanted to stay with Ukraine. That's a reasonable consideration, but not the only one. And the question "what would you do?" seems to me a reasonable one, to which the response "support the war continuing indefinitely" is unsatisfactory.
I hesitate to write this, as it generates hostility at a personal level which I can do without, given my lack of influence over the outcome. But you asked...
The post-WW2 international rules based order is that borders cannot be changed by force. They *can* be changed by the wishes of the current population, contrary to how you put it above.
In the 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum, the eastern provinces voted overwhelmingly for independence from Russia. Luhansk was at 84%, as was Donetsk. Kharkiv was 86%. These are not “relatively slender” majorities.
A lot of people buy the argument that all Russian speakers at heart want to be part of Russia. Having conceded that point, mentally, it's easy to then move to a 'Well invasion is wrong, buuuuuut' position. That the people in the east have spent 10+ years living with it without all committing seppuku makes a cold view of accepting the status quo much easier (even I would say I was never confident Ukraine would be able/permitted to regain those areas - possibly in a best case, but never Crimea) whilst softening the mental low that it is such a cold calculation.
By that logic Ireland deserves re-occupation by British forces as they are English speakers, and a number of Commonwealth countries too. If language is destiny, we have our work cut out.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
He's very critical of Russia and rather sympathetic to Zelensky in the interview, but his bottom line is (as mine is) what is the UK's interest in Ukraine?
The same as our interest in Belgium when fascists invaded.
It is in our own self interest that Putin loses, badly, and is seen to lose on the World stage.
I think you're confusing your World Wars.
Yes WW2 was the one where Poland started it by provoking Germany.
(Is it Saturday already?)
Germany and Russia. You'd have thought they'd have more sense.
Yes, though some blame must go to the British and French for provocatively allying themselves with the Poles. What choice did it leave Hitler and Stalin?
There is the question of whether Hitler would have been allowed to bank his gains if he had stopped after the Anschluss with Austria and Czechoslovakia.
And whether Hitler could have been quickly defeated if France, with its larger army, had gone into Poland.
Both questions have clear parallels with Russia/Ukraine.
The answer is yes. Had Hitler been satisfied with the Sudetenland, no one would have intervened. But, the Nazis' economy was heading for bankruptcy, by that point. Hitler needed war.
And, the answer to the second is a partial yes. There was no way of sending troops to Poland, but an invasion of SW Germany was quite feasible. Unfortunately, the Allied Supreme Commander was an incompetent, who thought that radios were evil.
If he was listening to Julia Hartley-Brewer I sympathise.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
I think he was envisaging it as part of a wider international response, rather than the UK filling the shoes itself. I doubt anyone believes we have the capability for that. And less about responsibility to do it vs in long term interests to do it.
Better for the states in Europe to try to do it than just cede ground entirely to the Trump-Putin-Xi multipolar world. But I fear the continent is too old and tired to truly try.
Not a bad article from a conservative perspective. Opposition suits him much better than cheerleading, as he once did long ago for Rumsfeld, and for a short time, Iraq.
The Economist this week is pretty uncheery. Summary: Europe alone. Needs single envoy to speak for it with USA and Russia. France and UK need to agree Europe's nuclear shield. Defence spending to rise to 4-5%, an extra 300bn Euros. Cut welfare. This is "Europe's worst nightmare".
Yup, there's no more room for higher taxes, it has to come out of welfare. We pay too many people too much money to sit at home and do nothing.
A shift from welfare spending to defence spending is also a shift from spending on the old to spending on the young and from spending on non-workers to spending on workers.
I think that's a bit optimistic. From my limited experience working at Westland Helicopters back in the day, defence spending tends to only trickle to workers as the horrendously expensive kit dams the flow rather.
Certainly, but it all helps:
Britain's biggest defence firm, BAE Systems, has announced the creation of 50 new jobs as part of a £25m investment in Sheffield.
The company said it would open a new 94,000 sq ft (8,732 sq m)artillery development and production facility in the city in 2025.
It said the site would house a state-of-the-art factory which would specialise in artillery expertise.
At the other end of the scale are the 15k employed by BAe at Barrow.
It is generally recognised that military spending has the worst GDP multiplier amongst government departments at about 0.5. Arguments to expand the economy by military spending are a nonsense. The benefits of such spending are outside economics.
I think stability/security/institutions are very much part of economics, but I guess it difficult to work out exactly how valuable they are. The nuclear deterrent is probably brilliant value for money, but the benefits are felt across Europe/world, not just the UK.
If we're going to spend cash on conventional weapons, using them to fuck up the Russians in Ukraine must be the most efficient use of resources. Otherwise, I'm very sceptical of increases to our own defence spending given our obvious reluctance to ever use it. Another telecoms cable was damaged yesterday and *crickets*.
A better use of cash would be to achieve domestic energy security and reduce our exposure to gas prices.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
I think he was envisaging it as part of a wider international response, rather than the UK filling the shoes itself. I doubt anyone believes we have the capability for that. And less about responsibility to do it vs in long term interests to do it.
Better for the states in Europe to try to do it than just cede ground entirely to the Trump-Putin-Xi multipolar world. But I fear the continent is too old and tired to truly try.
And divided if we are willing to be honest about it.
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
He has been right (if you set aside his vocalisations) about many things. Securing Canada and Greenland means securing the NorthWest Passage, which is of strategic importance as the icecap melts. Panama secures another passage. Treating Canada and Mexico like shit secures his supplies (foolishly, since they'll just sell to somebody else, but I don't think he gets that). To win in Ukraine requires too much time and money and he doesn't care so fuck it: he'll impose a coerced peace.
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
If Trump's approach to projecting US power was effective it would have been tried already. He is burning through US alliances and soft power at an astonishing rate. It's all going to come crashing down.
Nick I don't doubt you are arguing in good faith, and value your perspective.
But where would you factor in the larger cause of this war, which is to signal to Putin that his interference in Eastern Europe is not legitimate? I'm not sure this is 'essentially a border war'.
Second question: whilst I think I agree it is time for a settlement (subject to Ukraine's wishes), do you agree that Trump's approach has inexplicably given all the bargaining power to Putin in a way that is totally unnecessary?
Thank you, Max.
Q1: I think we've already signalled that pretty effectively. Should we go on doing so indefinitely? Q2: I agree - Trump's approach inexplicably hands over key points in advance, ironically making a mockery of claiming to be an expert on "the deal".
It would IMO be reasonable to explore the possibility of peace, without preconditions. If the price proved too high, so be it - war continues until that changes. But contiuing the war indefinitely without a plausible gameplan for ending it seems to me wrong.
Then I think we are largely in agreement. I guess the devilish detail is in the price of peace that you mentioned.
Specifically, I'm not sure we have actually signalled effectively to Putin yet (Q1). I think I agree that asking further Ukrainians to walk into the meat grinder achieves little more in that regard and, as such, the obviously horrendous loss of life (on both sides - conscripted Russians are humans too) demands that we try to achieve peace.
But I also think that, if one takes Putin's perspective, a cheap peace is just a stepping stone for his wider aims. As such, a peace on favourable terms to him signals precisely the opposite of what Europe needs it to i.e. at a cheap (to Putin) price he has gained territory and more importantly proved a precedent that it is possible and profitable to face down western threats to expansionist aims.
At the same time, I believe that there is an opportunity to signal more effectively by only accepting peace on more expensive (to Putin) terms, and by threatening measured escalation if the terms aren't accepted.
Which is why what Trump is doing is so egregiously shit - he is throwing away the huge sacrifices made by Ukraine on the altar of a quick deal with someone he admires, and signalling precisely the worst thing to Putin as a result. I suspect this is not accidental.
The Economist this week is pretty uncheery. Summary: Europe alone. Needs single envoy to speak for it with USA and Russia. France and UK need to agree Europe's nuclear shield. Defence spending to rise to 4-5%, an extra 300bn Euros. Cut welfare. This is "Europe's worst nightmare".
Yup, there's no more room for higher taxes, it has to come out of welfare. We pay too many people too much money to sit at home and do nothing.
A shift from welfare spending to defence spending is also a shift from spending on the old to spending on the young and from spending on non-workers to spending on workers.
I think that's a bit optimistic. From my limited experience working at Westland Helicopters back in the day, defence spending tends to only trickle to workers as the horrendously expensive kit dams the flow rather.
Certainly, but it all helps:
Britain's biggest defence firm, BAE Systems, has announced the creation of 50 new jobs as part of a £25m investment in Sheffield.
The company said it would open a new 94,000 sq ft (8,732 sq m)artillery development and production facility in the city in 2025.
It said the site would house a state-of-the-art factory which would specialise in artillery expertise.
At the other end of the scale are the 15k employed by BAe at Barrow.
It is generally recognised that military spending has the worst GDP multiplier amongst government departments at about 0.5. Arguments to expand the economy by military spending are a nonsense. The benefits of such spending are outside economics.
That depends. You could for example class SpaceX and Starlink as military spending, at least partially.
Along with the early development of VLSI silicon chips.
As a short term economic boat, you're right, though. But again, for a country like Germany, which rules out deficit spending as a way to boost the economy, it's better than nothing, even in the short term.
Hardly reliable evidence but listening to some Americans on a Singapore River Cruise this afternoon, my sense is they like Trump not because they agree with him but because he’s doing something or at least that’s the perception.
I’ve never been a fan of the old “we must do something, this is something, let’s do it” school of governance. Trump seems dynamic in contrast to Biden, he seems to have ideas in a way Biden didn’t and I get the appeal of that in a time of uncertainty and malaise.
That doesn’t mean I think he’s right but those seeking a response to the new breed of political disruptors have to accept the popularity of disruption, the attraction of change, the allure of risk taking.
Playing it safe, kicking the can down the road because trying to solve the huge problems of modern society and Government is too much effort simply doesn’t work any more and the vacuum has been filled by the disruptors.
There may be something in what you say, though it is weird as parties and politicians of the 'old' school do still overpromise and make grandiose declarations of intent.
But you seem to need to have the subtlety of a blue whale making love to a sturgeon in order to get through to we the public's thick skulls thesedays.
“The public gets what the public wants” as Mr Weller once told us. He also told us the public wants what the public gets.
Trying to square any number of conflicting circles is what Government has become - it’s also about that old Greek philosopher, priorities. Is defence more important than health? Is being able to provide for the vulnerable more important than people being able to keep more of their hard earned? These aren’t binary questions with binary answers and that’s what politics and Government should be about.
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
He has been right (if you set aside his vocalisations) about many things. Securing Canada and Greenland means securing the NorthWest Passage, which is of strategic importance as the icecap melts. Panama secures another passage. Treating Canada and Mexico like shit secures his supplies (foolishly, since they'll just sell to somebody else, but I don't think he gets that). To win in Ukraine requires too much time and money and he doesn't care so fuck it: he'll impose a coerced peace.
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
If Trump's approach to projecting US power was effective it would have been tried already. He is burning through US alliances and soft power at an astonishing rate. It's all going to come crashing down.
It is not just sub optimal but also significantly worse than the preceding status quo, however that doesn't mean his approach will necessarily come crashing down. Sub-optimal regimes with silly policies can and often do stay in place for decades at a time.
Anyone got any tips for the German election? Seat totals etc?
A CSU/CSU plurality seems a safe bet, as does the complete loss of FDP and fall in SPD support. The need to exclude the AFD probably points to a CDU-SPD coalition in the end, though a majority might be cobbled together with some of the small parties. The problem is essentially that if a CDU-SPD government is perceived to fail, the AFD will present themselves as the only substantial alternative. Germany doesn't usually do minority governments, which otherwise might be the best bet for the CDU/CSU.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
Was it not, pre-1945, always a cornerstone of British foreign policy, that no one power should become dominant in Europe?
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
He has been right (if you set aside his vocalisations) about many things. Securing Canada and Greenland means securing the NorthWest Passage, which is of strategic importance as the icecap melts. Panama secures another passage. Treating Canada and Mexico like shit secures his supplies (foolishly, since they'll just sell to somebody else, but I don't think he gets that). To win in Ukraine requires too much time and money and he doesn't care so fuck it: he'll impose a coerced peace.
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
If Trump's approach to projecting US power was effective it would have been tried already. He is burning through US alliances and soft power at an astonishing rate. It's all going to come crashing down.
Yes. The issue with Trump is he's bad at the transaction stuff.
"Mr Zelenskyy you want us to support your country. What do we get in return?" is a good question for Zelenskyy to provide an answer to. Because it means the USA is more likely to stick with Ukraine. Trump clearly isn't interested in the answer however.
This is a member of Luftur Rahman’s Aspire party. He has been charged with perverting the course of justice.
Illegality is part of their brand. Brave girl to resist the (alleged) pressure from him and others.
I think it's a disgrace Rahman was allowed back into politics. I think electoral crimes are one of those things that should result in a lifetime ban, you don't get a doover.
It's not so easy and common to convict that it could be an easy way to take out an opponent either.
Though that the people there want corruption is a bigger problem.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
Was it not, pre-1945, always a cornerstone of British foreign policy, that no one power should become dominant in Europe?
Do you think there is any risk that Russia would conquer the EU if we didn’t stop it?
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
He has been right (if you set aside his vocalisations) about many things. Securing Canada and Greenland means securing the NorthWest Passage, which is of strategic importance as the icecap melts. Panama secures another passage. Treating Canada and Mexico like shit secures his supplies (foolishly, since they'll just sell to somebody else, but I don't think he gets that). To win in Ukraine requires too much time and money and he doesn't care so fuck it: he'll impose a coerced peace.
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
If Trump's approach to projecting US power was effective it would have been tried already. He is burning through US alliances and soft power at an astonishing rate. It's all going to come crashing down.
Yes, if dick waving was so useful it'd be seen more often.
My photo quota is unique users posting on Bluesky each day since the "invitation trial" ended last September. Just to keep @Leon engaged .
I can't really compare to twitter since that is very significantly made up of bots. I get the impression there are still quite a lot of placeholder accounts on Bluesky still, however.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
Was it not, pre-1945, always a cornerstone of British foreign policy, that no one power should become dominant in Europe?
Do you think there is any risk that Russia would conquer the EU if we didn’t stop it?
Are there any steps between that and what there is now that might be suboptimal?
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
Was it not, pre-1945, always a cornerstone of British foreign policy, that no one power should become dominant in Europe?
Do you think there is any risk that Russia would conquer the EU if we didn’t stop it?
Do you think Russia presents any threat to the EU?
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
We are in Europe already. We might not be member of the EU, but one thing the Brexiteers were right about is that we will always be an important part of the continent.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
Was it not, pre-1945, always a cornerstone of British foreign policy, that no one power should become dominant in Europe?
Do you think there is any risk that Russia would conquer the EU if we didn’t stop it?
Do you think Russia presents any threat to the EU?
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
He has been right (if you set aside his vocalisations) about many things. Securing Canada and Greenland means securing the NorthWest Passage, which is of strategic importance as the icecap melts. Panama secures another passage. Treating Canada and Mexico like shit secures his supplies (foolishly, since they'll just sell to somebody else, but I don't think he gets that). To win in Ukraine requires too much time and money and he doesn't care so fuck it: he'll impose a coerced peace.
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
If Trump's approach to projecting US power was effective it would have been tried already. He is burning through US alliances and soft power at an astonishing rate. It's all going to come crashing down.
It is not just sub optimal but also significantly worse than the preceding status quo, however that doesn't mean his approach will necessarily come crashing down. Sub-optimal regimes with silly policies can and often do stay in place for decades at a time.
True. But Trump's approach is already upsetting consumer and business sentiment in the US. Yesterday, consumer medium term inflation expectations rose to their highest level in 30 years. And the services PMI crashed to a <50 level, signaling a sharp slowing in growth. I think the wheels are going to come off the clown car faster than people think.
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
He has been right (if you set aside his vocalisations) about many things. Securing Canada and Greenland means securing the NorthWest Passage, which is of strategic importance as the icecap melts. Panama secures another passage. Treating Canada and Mexico like shit secures his supplies (foolishly, since they'll just sell to somebody else, but I don't think he gets that). To win in Ukraine requires too much time and money and he doesn't care so fuck it: he'll impose a coerced peace.
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
If Trump's approach to projecting US power was effective it would have been tried already. He is burning through US alliances and soft power at an astonishing rate. It's all going to come crashing down.
Yes. The issue with Trump is he's bad at the transaction stuff.
"Mr Zelenskyy you want us to support your country. What do we get in return?" is a good question for Zelenskyy to provide an answer to. Because it means the USA is more likely to stick with Ukraine. Trump clearly isn't interested in the answer however.
The Trump brand is based around "the art of the deal", a work of fiction that Trump didn't write and probably hasn't even read. In reality, his approach to deal-making leaves a lot to be desired, as we saw during his first term.
How much blowback would there be in Europe if the US cut off Star Link ?
it's not altogether clear that any of the critical mineral deposits in Ukraine are of world-changing significance. It's certainly true that Ukraine has large proven resources of lithium - around 500,000 tonnes, more than any other country in Europe.However, this is small beer in comparison with the 1.8 million tonnes of lithium reserves in the US. Indeed, look at the other prospective lithium resources that sit underneath America and they come to a whopping 19 million tonnes, more than the country will ever need for its electric vehicle fleet.
So maybe it's more about denying Ukraine’s natural resources to Europe (which would suit the US, Russia and China) than claiming them for America.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
It's all of Europe's responsibility but we should also exclude countries from supply chains who don't step up. No Germany, no Spain and no Hungary etc... to be included in the NATO supply chain so they don't get the benefit from the extra spending it results in.
If we're going to collectively spend an extra $300bn per year on continental defence then the money should be spent in those countries who are funding it and exclude those who act as nothing but a blocker to action.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
Was it not, pre-1945, always a cornerstone of British foreign policy, that no one power should become dominant in Europe?
Do you think there is any risk that Russia would conquer the EU if we didn’t stop it?
Do you think Russia presents any threat to the EU?
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
He has been right (if you set aside his vocalisations) about many things. Securing Canada and Greenland means securing the NorthWest Passage, which is of strategic importance as the icecap melts. Panama secures another passage. Treating Canada and Mexico like shit secures his supplies (foolishly, since they'll just sell to somebody else, but I don't think he gets that). To win in Ukraine requires too much time and money and he doesn't care so fuck it: he'll impose a coerced peace.
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
If Trump's approach to projecting US power was effective it would have been tried already. He is burning through US alliances and soft power at an astonishing rate. It's all going to come crashing down.
Yes. The issue with Trump is he's bad at the transaction stuff.
"Mr Zelenskyy you want us to support your country. What do we get in return?" is a good question for Zelenskyy to provide an answer to. Because it means the USA is more likely to stick with Ukraine. Trump clearly isn't interested in the answer however.
The Trump brand is based around "the art of the deal", a work of fiction that Trump didn't write and probably hasn't even read. In reality, his approach to deal-making leaves a lot to be desired, as we saw during his first term.
I'd guess books read by Trump post education would be zero. Memos for him have to be one page, with bullet points and lots of graphics and still do not get read.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
Was it not, pre-1945, always a cornerstone of British foreign policy, that no one power should become dominant in Europe?
Do you think there is any risk that Russia would conquer the EU if we didn’t stop it?
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
He has been right (if you set aside his vocalisations) about many things. Securing Canada and Greenland means securing the NorthWest Passage, which is of strategic importance as the icecap melts. Panama secures another passage. Treating Canada and Mexico like shit secures his supplies (foolishly, since they'll just sell to somebody else, but I don't think he gets that). To win in Ukraine requires too much time and money and he doesn't care so fuck it: he'll impose a coerced peace.
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
I think it only seems to make sense for white people; Trump will hit all of those just as hard.
I was hearing an anecdata account the other day from someone who's insulin is costing him 10x as much as before (~$8 per month to approximately ~$80 per month). When the tax cuts are targeted explicitly at the top whatever %, it is the people further down who suffer. That will hit the base Trump made his fake promises to.
That's trickle-UP economics, as it has been for decades in the US aiui. Others may have data.
I read an article from someone who grew up in a poor community in a flyover state and had moved on up. He went back, and described the difference that there is now little sense of community - ie a loss of hope.
And Trump and his claque won't care, any more than they cared about their abrupt termination of USAID medical research trials left experimental devices inside people's bodies and staff instructed that it had been stopped so they could not remove them.
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
He has been right (if you set aside his vocalisations) about many things. Securing Canada and Greenland means securing the NorthWest Passage, which is of strategic importance as the icecap melts. Panama secures another passage. Treating Canada and Mexico like shit secures his supplies (foolishly, since they'll just sell to somebody else, but I don't think he gets that). To win in Ukraine requires too much time and money and he doesn't care so fuck it: he'll impose a coerced peace.
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
If Trump's approach to projecting US power was effective it would have been tried already. He is burning through US alliances and soft power at an astonishing rate. It's all going to come crashing down.
It's virtually bound to imo. The top guy is completely out of his depth and so are almost all the people around him. The 'inputs' to the Trump2 model are of the very lowest quality, therefore the eventual output will be too. Garbage in, garbage out.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
Was it not, pre-1945, always a cornerstone of British foreign policy, that no one power should become dominant in Europe?
Do you think there is any risk that Russia would conquer the EU if we didn’t stop it?
Why not give us your own thoughts (if you have any), rather than inane questions?
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
He has been right (if you set aside his vocalisations) about many things. Securing Canada and Greenland means securing the NorthWest Passage, which is of strategic importance as the icecap melts. Panama secures another passage. Treating Canada and Mexico like shit secures his supplies (foolishly, since they'll just sell to somebody else, but I don't think he gets that). To win in Ukraine requires too much time and money and he doesn't care so fuck it: he'll impose a coerced peace.
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
If Trump's approach to projecting US power was effective it would have been tried already. He is burning through US alliances and soft power at an astonishing rate. It's all going to come crashing down.
It is not just sub optimal but also significantly worse than the preceding status quo, however that doesn't mean his approach will necessarily come crashing down. Sub-optimal regimes with silly policies can and often do stay in place for decades at a time.
There at least is one basis for Luckguy’s Vietnam comparison.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
It's all of Europe's responsibility but we should also exclude countries from supply chains who don't step up. No Germany, no Spain and no Hungary etc... to be included in the NATO supply chain so they don't get the benefit from the extra spending it results in.
If we're going to collectively spend an extra $300bn per year on continental defence then the money should be spent in those countries who are funding it and exclude those who act as nothing but a blocker to action.
Let’s see who will step up before ruling them out. Germany, for example, is entirely possible; we’ll know by next week, probably.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It makes Russia into a China vassal state, reorienting its economy to supply China with its abundant natural resources to fuel their takedown of the Western economies.
It risks full collapse, which could see the emergence of nuclear warlordism, or the emergence of a dictator with a far more anti-Western stance.
It's 800,000 people dead before their time.
Apart from that it's great. You do a very good line in negative cynicism by the way, for someone so opposed to it.
I'm answering your question, in your terms.
Given your - and Hitchens' - indifference to Ukrainian deaths and suffering, why should I or anyone else, care about the deaths and suffering of Russian soldiers?
Um, hang on, how is it me being indifferent to Ukranian deaths and suffering? It is you who is arguing for the continued war, on the basis that it kills Russians. It also happens to be killing Ukrainians.
As for the moral tone of your answer - sure, I take your point. That's why I've given you two equally rational answers as to why a mortally weakened Russia might not be in the UK's interests.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
Was it not, pre-1945, always a cornerstone of British foreign policy, that no one power should become dominant in Europe?
Do you think there is any risk that Russia would conquer the EU if we didn’t stop it?
Do you think Russia presents any threat to the EU?
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
He has been right (if you set aside his vocalisations) about many things. Securing Canada and Greenland means securing the NorthWest Passage, which is of strategic importance as the icecap melts. Panama secures another passage. Treating Canada and Mexico like shit secures his supplies (foolishly, since they'll just sell to somebody else, but I don't think he gets that). To win in Ukraine requires too much time and money and he doesn't care so fuck it: he'll impose a coerced peace.
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
If Trump's approach to projecting US power was effective it would have been tried already. He is burning through US alliances and soft power at an astonishing rate. It's all going to come crashing down.
Yes. The issue with Trump is he's bad at the transaction stuff.
"Mr Zelenskyy you want us to support your country. What do we get in return?" is a good question for Zelenskyy to provide an answer to. Because it means the USA is more likely to stick with Ukraine. Trump clearly isn't interested in the answer however.
The Trump brand is based around "the art of the deal", a work of fiction that Trump didn't write and probably hasn't even read. In reality, his approach to deal-making leaves a lot to be desired, as we saw during his first term.
If you wish to transact, you have to be willing to keep your end of the deal, which to Trump, is the hallmark of a "sucker and loser."
What the betting that Trump demands Starmer hand over the Falklands to his Argentinian pal?
Milei isn't demanding them. His position is that the wishes of the people living there should be respected.
Does that matter to Trump, there’s a deal to be done for hydrocarbons.
That's true. The trouble is that once Starmer's friends get involved in the negotiations we'll end up paying Argentina for the privilege of letting the US exploit the resources.
That’s effectively what Trump wants with Ukraine, except in that case he wants to divvy up with Putin.
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
He has been right (if you set aside his vocalisations) about many things. Securing Canada and Greenland means securing the NorthWest Passage, which is of strategic importance as the icecap melts. Panama secures another passage. Treating Canada and Mexico like shit secures his supplies (foolishly, since they'll just sell to somebody else, but I don't think he gets that). To win in Ukraine requires too much time and money and he doesn't care so fuck it: he'll impose a coerced peace.
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
If Trump's approach to projecting US power was effective it would have been tried already. He is burning through US alliances and soft power at an astonishing rate. It's all going to come crashing down.
Yes. The issue with Trump is he's bad at the transaction stuff.
"Mr Zelenskyy you want us to support your country. What do we get in return?" is a good question for Zelenskyy to provide an answer to. Because it means the USA is more likely to stick with Ukraine. Trump clearly isn't interested in the answer however.
The Trump brand is based around "the art of the deal", a work of fiction that Trump didn't write and probably hasn't even read. In reality, his approach to deal-making leaves a lot to be desired, as we saw during his first term.
If you wish to transact, you have to be willing to keep your end of the deal, which to Trump, is the hallmark of a "sucker and loser."
The only less trustworthy person to deal with is Putin, proven multiple times.
Suggesting that we trust some combination of the two is utterly mind boggling.
Trump is purging the military top brass to replace them with 'more compliant' individuals.
I am curious about the motivation of any such individuals. I can see in the very short term career advancement, but in the next 5 or 10 years, unless the republic is overthrown and the insane clown and his posse remain in charge it's not going to end well for them
How many of Hitler's top generals did well out of it...?
“after the state banned abortion, dozens more pregnant and postpartum women died in Texas hospitals than had in pre-pandemic years, which ProPublica used as a baseline to avoid COVID-19-related distortions. As the maternal mortality rate dropped nationally, ProPublica found, it rose substantially in Texas.”
Nick I don't doubt you are arguing in good faith, and value your perspective.
But where would you factor in the larger cause of this war, which is to signal to Putin that his interference in Eastern Europe is not legitimate? I'm not sure this is 'essentially a border war'.
Second question: whilst I think I agree it is time for a settlement (subject to Ukraine's wishes), do you agree that Trump's approach has inexplicably given all the bargaining power to Putin in a way that is totally unnecessary?
Thank you, Max.
Q1: I think we've already signalled that pretty effectively. Should we go on doing so indefinitely? Q2: I agree - Trump's approach inexplicably hands over key points in advance, ironically making a mockery of claiming to be an expert on "the deal".
It would IMO be reasonable to explore the possibility of peace, without preconditions. If the price proved too high, so be it - war continues until that changes. But contiuing the war indefinitely without a plausible gameplan for ending it seems to me wrong.
Q1 yes. Otherwise the message Putin will take is that we will bitch and whine but ultimately he has more political stamina and can outlast Europe
“Without preconditions”… Putin would see that as surrender.
There are certain non negotiable: Ukraine must be an independent sovereign state that has a viable landmass. Putin’s demands do not allow for that. Hence no point in negotiations unless Putin accepts the baseline.
And no, Ukraine should not be forced to give stuff up to secure the baseline
The reality is that Putin/Russia is not yet exhausted. The frustration is that they were getting close to that point - we saw it with the collapse in Syria, with the loss of support from Iran, with the dependence on North Korea. Trumps behaviour has reenergised them and given them hope they can win. So they will fight on in pursuit of the unacceptable.
Nevertheless, he is right to question the wisdom of the desperate need to continue this war without US support, when the US was the driving force behind our participation in it.
Dickriding the US wasn't the sole motivation. I am sure Johnson got swept along, basking in the reflected glory of the martial euphoria when it looked like it might be an uncomplicated victory without any politically inconvenient mangled corpses. Indeed, the sheer density and quality of the memes coming from the front in February and March 2022 gave every indication that might be the case.
The Western governments just got sucked in as it progressed, or rather didn't progress, and Z was stridently begging for the next thing that would make all the difference and break the deadlock. Leopards, then Patriot, then HIMARS, then F-16s. There was never any articulation of what victory might look like or any strategy of how they'd get there. It was just keep sending the money and weapons, hoping for a Russian collapse that never came.
Yet, viewed very cold-bloodedly, Western aid to Ukraine has cost Russia about 10,000 armoured vehicles, 800,000 casualties, destroyed its best military units, and exacerbated its already severe demographic problems.
Where is the downside for us, in any of that?
It probably wasn't the very best way to use 10bn quid of taxpayers' money. They could actually done something that made the country better. Not much with 10bn, I grant you, but something.
That works out at less than £50 per person per year as our contribution to destroying Russia's military.
Its difficult to think of a more effective piece of government spending.
It is incredibly good value for money - viewed in terms of cold realpolitik. Russia has proved itself relentlessly hostile towards our interests.
Well, they are now apparently so hostile and capable that we have to double defence spending or they'll kill us all so it clearly hasn't worked.
Once the USA turned its back on NATO, increased defence spending became an inevitability.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
You seem to think it’s the UK’s responsibility to step into America’s shoes in Europe.
Was it not, pre-1945, always a cornerstone of British foreign policy, that no one power should become dominant in Europe?
Do you think there is any risk that Russia would conquer the EU if we didn’t stop it?
It could try but combined the EU militaries are at least as big as Russia's and France has nuclear weapons too
See Nigel’s been slagging Britain off in America. Predictable and depressing.
Meanwhile, The Reform logo points East towards Moscow. Hiding in plain sight.
While Trump's betrayal of Ukraine is dominating things here, I haven't yet heard it discussed in the real world, not even by the Ukranian doctor that I was working with earlier in the week.
I had a business meeting with a Californian on Weds. Recent events have caused family problems with his Maga sister and got him abuse. Feels like it’s back to 2006 🤷
Obviously those living in the Putin Reform media bubble will if anything be pleased at what’s going on.
Both my brother-in -law and my oldest friend are hard core Trumpist/Putinist types. I am finding myself having to limit my visits to them because I can't bite my tongue when they go off on their deranged rants.
Interesting. I live in a bubble where people seem to compete to show their disdain for Trump. The closest I find to someone making the alternative case is on here. It instinctively makes me feel that it just can't be that simple, I suppose I am a contrarian of sorts.
So, it seems to me the case can be made that Trump/Vance are just saying more bluntly and clearly which has always been true. The US will act in their self interest. The fact we wanted to delude ourselves for many years to give us a comfort blanket was on us, not them.
I think a case can also be made that the Lawfare of the previous administration was grossly irresponsible and a dangerous precedent. Trump should have been treated the same as everyone else before the law, he should not have been prosecuted for things that others doing the same would not have been prosecuted for.
I can sort of understand why the US might regard the Ukraine as a European problem rather than theirs.
Vance may be right about the excessive regulation of the EU in things like AI and data protection (I have sympathy with pretty much anyone criticising the bureaucratic and pointless mess of GDPR, for example).
He and even Musk may be right that the blob has simply grown out of control, more interested in feeding itself than serving the country (I have expressed similar, if more restrained views about our own country). Attacking it with callipers simply won't do, a chainsaw is needed.
I'm running out of arguments at this point but does anyone have any more? What is Trump & Co right about? Someone famous (but I am terrible with names) said if you didn't understand your opponents case then you don't even understand your own, or something like that.
He has been right (if you set aside his vocalisations) about many things. Securing Canada and Greenland means securing the NorthWest Passage, which is of strategic importance as the icecap melts. Panama secures another passage. Treating Canada and Mexico like shit secures his supplies (foolishly, since they'll just sell to somebody else, but I don't think he gets that). To win in Ukraine requires too much time and money and he doesn't care so fuck it: he'll impose a coerced peace.
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
I think it only seems to make sense for white people; Trump will hit all of those just as hard.
I was hearing an anecdata account the other day from someone who's insulin is costing him 10x as much as before (~$8 per month to approximately ~$80 per month). When the tax cuts are targeted explicitly at the top whatever %, it is the people further down who suffer. That will hit the base Trump made his fake promises to.
That's trickle-UP economics, as it has been for decades in the US aiui. Others may have data.
I read an article from someone who grew up in a poor community in a flyover state and had moved on up. He went back, and described the difference that there is now little sense of community - ie a loss of hope.
And Trump and his claque won't care, any more than they cared about their abrupt termination of USAID medical research trials left experimental devices inside people's bodies and staff instructed that it had been stopped so they could not remove them.
Agree with all of this, and the truly scary aspect of it is that his clique have sufficient control of mass communication that it is likely that he will be able to continue to lie about the causes of this such that people will continue to blame eg their insulin costs on whatever or whoever Trump tells them to.
And Vance has the temerity to make (legitimate) criticisms of Europe in regard to free speech.
Trump is purging the military top brass to replace them with 'more compliant' individuals.
I am curious about the motivation of any such individuals. I can see in the very short term career advancement, but in the next 5 or 10 years, unless the republic is overthrown and the insane clown and his posse remain in charge it's not going to end well for them
How many of Hitler's top generals did well out of it...?
Changing Joint Chiefs around the start of a presidential term isn’t, in itself, all that unusual. Which is not something you can say about the simultaneous dismissal of three Judge Advocates General.
kle4 said: "I wish Trump was playing more golf." So do I (just as I sometimes wished Obama would play more golf).
So I was pleased to learn that the Loser is playing more golf than he did in his first term: "Yet, by the standard of the first month of his second term, Trump’s 2017 absences from the White House were downright modest.
As of noon on Thursday, Trump will have been president for 31 full days. He will have spent all or part of 16 of those days at four Trump Organization properties. He will have played golf on 10 of those days. He will have spent 19 nights at the White House and 12 nights at properties owned by his private business. He will have spent precisely zero Friday or Saturday nights at the executive mansion. He will have played golf every weekend day except for this past Sunday, when he opted to take the presidential limousine for a spin at Daytona International Speedway instead." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/20/trump-second-term-golfing-resorts/
The only downside of all this golf -- for the nation and the world -- is that it prevents the Loser from being a check, at least occasionally, on Musk and company. I know, it sounds weird to think of the Loser being a force for moderation, even occasionally, but it has happened.
(For the record: If Musk has a plan behind all this disruption, I have not discovered it.)
I'll try to keep an eye on this thread today for any questions on the Competition entries but feel free to PM me if you want to be certain I see your query.
Thanks to all those who entered!
Thanks for your work on this. Mine was derived by Number Wang.
How quaint. I just zipped forward to January 2026 wrote down the answers and came back.
Trump is purging the military top brass to replace them with 'more compliant' individuals.
I am curious about the motivation of any such individuals. I can see in the very short term career advancement, but in the next 5 or 10 years, unless the republic is overthrown and the insane clown and his posse remain in charge it's not going to end well for them
How many of Hitler's top generals did well out of it...?
Changing Joint Chiefs around the start of a presidential term isn’t, in itself, all that unusual. Which is not something you can say about the simultaneous dismissal of three Judge Advocates General.
Hegseth called Brown unqualified solely because he's Black. Then they fired him... and replaced him with a white guy so indisputably unqualified that he requires a Presidential waiver.
Anyone got any tips for the German election? Seat totals etc?
A CSU/CSU plurality seems a safe bet, as does the complete loss of FDP and fall in SPD support. The need to exclude the AFD probably points to a CDU-SPD coalition in the end, though a majority might be cobbled together with some of the small parties. The problem is essentially that if a CDU-SPD government is perceived to fail, the AFD will present themselves as the only substantial alternative. Germany doesn't usually do minority governments, which otherwise might be the best bet for the CDU/CSU.
Watch out for the neo-nazi rampers - Musk, Putin, WilliamGlenn - subtracting the CSU total from the CDU/CSU total to make it look like the AfD came closer to winning.
For those not familiar with the situation - the CSU is only in Bavaria, the CDU everywhere except Bavaria. They are 2 parties, but have a joint manifesto for the federal elections, and a joint Chancellor-candidate. The closest UK equivalent is the Scottish Green Party and English + Welsh Green Party being 2 parties - but you probably wouldn't separate the Scottish Green vote total from the English + Welsh Green vote total for your headline election results. Except of course Bavaria is a lot bigger than Scotland (13.4 million vs 5.4 million), and CDU/CSU are a lot bigger than the Green Parties of Britain.
There's very little chance of a minority government for various reasons. Very likely Union+SPD, or if they don't have a majority Union+SPD+Greens. Small chance of Union+Greens if they have a majority. Very little chance of anything else.
Anyone hoping for any significant rapid changes in German foreign policy are likely to be disappointed, though Merz may provide Taurus missiles once Chancellor (which might take a while), if that is even still relevant by then. Union+Greens would be the most likely option to offer more weapons to Ukraine.
Anyone got any tips for the German election? Seat totals etc?
A CSU/CSU plurality seems a safe bet, as does the complete loss of FDP and fall in SPD support. The need to exclude the AFD probably points to a CDU-SPD coalition in the end, though a majority might be cobbled together with some of the small parties. The problem is essentially that if a CDU-SPD government is perceived to fail, the AFD will present themselves as the only substantial alternative. Germany doesn't usually do minority governments, which otherwise might be the best bet for the CDU/CSU.
Watch out for the neo-nazi rampers - Musk, Putin, WilliamGlenn - subtracting the CSU total from the CDU/CSU total to make it look like the AfD came closer to winning.
For those not familiar with the situation - the CSU is only in Bavaria, the CDU everywhere except Bavaria. They are 2 parties, but have a joint manifesto for the federal elections, and a joint Chancellor-candidate. The closest UK equivalent is the Scottish Green Party and English + Welsh Green Party being 2 parties - but you probably wouldn't separate the Scottish Green vote total from the English + Welsh Green vote total for your headline election results. Except of course Bavaria is a lot bigger than Scotland (13.4 million vs 5.4 million), and CDU/CSU are a lot bigger than the Green Parties of Britain.
There's very little chance of a minority government for various reasons. Very likely Union+SPD, or if they don't have a majority Union+SPD+Greens. Small chance of Union+Greens if they have a majority. Very little chance of anything else.
Anyone hoping for any significant rapid changes in German foreign policy are likely to be disappointed, though Merz may provide Taurus missiles once Chancellor (which might take a while), if that is even still relevant by then. Union+Greens would be the most likely option to offer more weapons to Ukraine.
The CSU of course have always won most seats in Bavaria even when the CDU have lost the rest of Germany, Bavaria is very conservative.
Merz I agree should be better for Zelensky than Scholz was as Chancellor, the AfD would obviously be even worse for Ukraine
kle4 said: "I wish Trump was playing more golf." So do I (just as I sometimes wished Obama would play more golf).
So I was pleased to learn that the Loser is playing more golf than he did in his first term: "Yet, by the standard of the first month of his second term, Trump’s 2017 absences from the White House were downright modest.
As of noon on Thursday, Trump will have been president for 31 full days. He will have spent all or part of 16 of those days at four Trump Organization properties. He will have played golf on 10 of those days. He will have spent 19 nights at the White House and 12 nights at properties owned by his private business. He will have spent precisely zero Friday or Saturday nights at the executive mansion. He will have played golf every weekend day except for this past Sunday, when he opted to take the presidential limousine for a spin at Daytona International Speedway instead." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/20/trump-second-term-golfing-resorts/
The only downside of all this golf -- for the nation and the world -- is that it prevents the Loser from being a check, at least occasionally, on Musk and company. I know, it sounds weird to think of the Loser being a force for moderation, even occasionally, but it has happened.
(For the record: If Musk has a plan behind all this disruption, I have not discovered it.)
Is Trump still charging the Secret Service for accommodation at his own resorts?
Trump is purging the military top brass to replace them with 'more compliant' individuals.
I am curious about the motivation of any such individuals. I can see in the very short term career advancement, but in the next 5 or 10 years, unless the republic is overthrown and the insane clown and his posse remain in charge it's not going to end well for them
How many of Hitler's top generals did well out of it...?
Changing Joint Chiefs around the start of a presidential term isn’t, in itself, all that unusual. Which is not something you can say about the simultaneous dismissal of three Judge Advocates General.
Hegseth called Brown unqualified solely because he's Black. Then they fired him... and replaced him with a white guy so indisputably unqualified that he requires a Presidential waiver.
Racism, sexism, homophobia will all become very apparent soon, sadly. The rights of anyone not white and straight will slowly be reduced - as has already become the case for women.
How much blowback would there be in Europe if the US cut off Star Link ?
it's not altogether clear that any of the critical mineral deposits in Ukraine are of world-changing significance. It's certainly true that Ukraine has large proven resources of lithium - around 500,000 tonnes, more than any other country in Europe.However, this is small beer in comparison with the 1.8 million tonnes of lithium reserves in the US. Indeed, look at the other prospective lithium resources that sit underneath America and they come to a whopping 19 million tonnes, more than the country will ever need for its electric vehicle fleet.
So maybe it's more about denying Ukraine’s natural resources to Europe (which would suit the US, Russia and China) than claiming them for America.
Nah. It’s about money and who gets to exploit the minerals. Contracts will go to friends of Trump who will keep the “repayments” of US government support for Ukraine
Comments
It'd all be fascinating from an academic perspective.
This is not even close to the total number of similar groups I know.
The same is true of our support for Ukraine. We don’t support Ukraine because it’s easy, because a Russian collapse is just round the corner. We support Ukraine because it is the right thing to do, to stand against a war of aggression and authoritarianism, even if victory is difficult to achieve.
And, the answer to the second is a partial yes. There was no way of sending troops to Poland, but an invasion of SW Germany was quite feasible. Unfortunately, the Allied Supreme Commander was an incompetent, who thought that radios were evil.
But you seem to need to have the subtlety of a blue whale making love to a sturgeon in order to get through to we the public's thick skulls thesedays.
Women are treated like this because, bluntly, if something does not matter to men or affect them, they think it does not matter at all.
In fact, we should have done so in 2008 or 2014.
To put it another way. The threats work because Trump knows Ukraine is in a desperate situation and so exploits it. Zelenskyy needs to get as much as he can in return.
Ireland is a good example - there are good reasons to support unification, but sometimes people simplistically leave it as 'NI and ROI on the same island and thus it should be unified' kind of argument. Something I doubt would be argued by the same people to unify (in more direct sense) England, Scotland, and Wales, or other places in the world where islands are divided politically.
I'm still half-expecting the USA to go in on Russia's side. "Ukraine are being unreasonable in rejecting our best-in-the-world peace deal, so the only way to get peace is to force it. And I promised the American people peace. It's just been a long day..."
Trump understands the realities of power and is powerful. He cares about the American people (at least the white ones who vote for him) and not one jot for anybody else. Given that, all his actions make sense. He has a better grasp of reality and power than we do and is remaking the world to his liking. Hence his criticism of the EU.
So yes: he's right on most things. It's his morals and his deleritous effects on the UK and the British people that I hate.
Though overall I wold agree with you.
My initial point is that it would be a shift in spending from those who do not work to those who do work.
Something I regard as increasingly necessary.
The French state became a broken reed between the wars, and that was reflected right through society.
Yes I agree - and so do they. It came up because daytime TV had been talking about conscription (they quote the Jeremy Vine programme), presumably as something easy to grab hold of that gets attention.
The view of the team in the studio - 2 of whom have been service in the army and could be liable for call-up under regs aiui, is that conscription was out of modern British tradition (ended finally in the 60s I think) that it would be received badly. And that the forces don't like it because they lose more from having their troops train and babysit than they gain from reluctant conscripts. They discuss the current French version of National Service, which is civilian (iirc).
They also discuss the Finnish system - which does work but it's tied up with Russia being next door and having been invaded in living memory.
They suggest that for the quick phases it is about mobilising reserves. Hamish de Bretton Gordon comments that when he was commanding the Royal Tank Regiment mobilised in peacekeeping / making forces they had around 10-15% reservists.
Here's a couple of deep links with the core of the comment:
https://youtu.be/Km1CZFPe5JE?t=1195
https://youtu.be/Km1CZFPe5JE?t=1822
I think the one thing this podcast has not grappled with yet is the US willingness to use force with weaker nations throughout its history, and what happens if the US turns hostile and actively seeks to undermine Europe. IMO Trump is quite amoral / self-siloed enough to be capable of both.
I think we will end up with an "intimidate the Russians" force, not a "peacekeeping" force - since the condition of fighting having stopped by mutual consent will not be achieved. Things like air policing will be the cutting edge imo.
I'd just make the point that the Russia-backed regimes in LPR and DPR were *very* nasty over those ten years. The stories coming out of them were horrific. The same - and worse - would happen to the rest of Ukraine if Putin wins it.
Eternal damnation on anyone who wants that for Ukraine, or Estonia, Latvia...
Sure some of the ideas seem rather prosaic and obvious now, but like all clichés they had to start somewhere, and were radical new ideas in their day.
Q1: I think we've already signalled that pretty effectively. Should we go on doing so indefinitely?
Q2: I agree - Trump's approach inexplicably hands over key points in advance, ironically making a mockery of claiming to be an expert on "the deal".
It would IMO be reasonable to explore the possibility of peace, without preconditions. If the price proved too high, so be it - war continues until that changes. But contiuing the war indefinitely without a plausible gameplan for ending it seems to me wrong.
Russia could be both too weak to do something right now but having the desire to do it which requires effort now to resist.
I don't see what's contradictory about that, especially when the reason they might be too weak would be because of all the fighting Ukraine has been enabled to do, yet each time it's raised it gets a guffaw from you as though it makes no sense. What am I missing?
If it is clear that Europe is going to step up, that might either change the context somewhat or string it out.
Better to be increasing it, when Russia is down 800,000 men, and 10,000 armoured vehicles, than when it isn't.
Better for the states in Europe to try to do it than just cede ground entirely to the Trump-Putin-Xi multipolar world. But I fear the continent is too old and tired to truly try.
Opposition suits him much better than cheerleading, as he once did long ago for Rumsfeld, and for a short time, Iraq.
If we're going to spend cash on conventional weapons, using them to fuck up the Russians in Ukraine must be the most efficient use of resources. Otherwise, I'm very sceptical of increases to our own defence spending given our obvious reluctance to ever use it. Another telecoms cable was damaged yesterday and *crickets*.
A better use of cash would be to achieve domestic energy security and reduce our exposure to gas prices.
Specifically, I'm not sure we have actually signalled effectively to Putin yet (Q1). I think I agree that asking further Ukrainians to walk into the meat grinder achieves little more in that regard and, as such, the obviously horrendous loss of life (on both sides - conscripted Russians are humans too) demands that we try to achieve peace.
But I also think that, if one takes Putin's perspective, a cheap peace is just a stepping stone for his wider aims. As such, a peace on favourable terms to him signals precisely the opposite of what Europe needs it to i.e. at a cheap (to Putin) price he has gained territory and more importantly proved a precedent that it is
possible and profitable to face down western threats to expansionist aims.
At the same time, I believe that there is an opportunity to signal more effectively by only accepting peace on more expensive (to Putin) terms, and by threatening measured escalation if the terms aren't accepted.
Which is why what Trump is doing is so egregiously shit - he is throwing away the huge sacrifices made by Ukraine on the altar of a quick deal with someone he admires, and signalling precisely the worst thing to Putin as a result. I suspect this is not accidental.
You could for example class SpaceX and Starlink as military spending, at least partially.
Along with the early development of VLSI silicon chips.
As a short term economic boat, you're right, though.
But again, for a country like Germany, which rules out deficit spending as a way to boost the economy, it's better than nothing, even in the short term.
This is a member of Luftur Rahman’s Aspire party. He has been charged with perverting the course of justice.
Trying to square any number of conflicting circles is what Government has become - it’s also about that old Greek philosopher, priorities. Is defence more important than health? Is being able to provide for the vulnerable more important than people being able to keep more of their hard earned? These aren’t binary questions with binary answers and that’s what politics and Government should be about.
"Mr Zelenskyy you want us to support your country. What do we get in return?" is a good question for Zelenskyy to provide an answer to. Because it means the USA is more likely to stick with Ukraine. Trump clearly isn't interested in the answer however.
I think it's a disgrace Rahman was allowed back into politics. I think electoral crimes are one of those things that should result in a lifetime ban, you don't get a doover.
It's not so easy and common to convict that it could be an easy way to take out an opponent either.
Though that the people there want corruption is a bigger problem.
I can't really compare to twitter since that is very significantly made up of bots. I get the impression there are still quite a lot of placeholder accounts on Bluesky still, however.
https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/21/meta-x-approved-ads-containing-violent-anti-muslim-antisemitic-hate-speech-ahead-of-german-election-study-finds/
it's not altogether clear that any of the critical mineral deposits in Ukraine are of world-changing significance. It's certainly true that Ukraine has large proven resources of lithium - around 500,000 tonnes, more than any other country in Europe.However, this is small beer in comparison with the 1.8 million tonnes of lithium reserves in the US. Indeed, look at the other prospective lithium resources that sit underneath America and they come to a whopping 19 million tonnes, more than the country will ever need for its electric vehicle fleet.
So maybe it's more about denying Ukraine’s natural resources to Europe (which would suit the US, Russia and China) than claiming them for America.
If we're going to collectively spend an extra $300bn per year on continental defence then the money should be spent in those countries who are funding it and exclude those who act as nothing but a blocker to action.
I was hearing an anecdata account the other day from someone who's insulin is costing him 10x as much as before (~$8 per month to approximately ~$80 per month). When the tax cuts are targeted explicitly at the top whatever %, it is the people further down who suffer. That will hit the base Trump made his fake promises to.
That's trickle-UP economics, as it has been for decades in the US aiui. Others may have data.
I read an article from someone who grew up in a poor community in a flyover state and had moved on up. He went back, and described the difference that there is now little sense of community - ie a loss of hope.
And Trump and his claque won't care, any more than they cared about their abrupt termination of USAID medical research trials left experimental devices inside people's bodies and staff instructed that it had been stopped so they could not remove them.
Germany, for example, is entirely possible; we’ll know by next week, probably.
As for the moral tone of your answer - sure, I take your point. That's why I've given you two equally rational answers as to why a mortally weakened Russia might not be in the UK's interests.
And we’re saying no, thus far.
Suggesting that we trust some combination of the two is utterly mind boggling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Q._Brown_Jr.#Chief_of_Staff_of_the_Air_Force
I am curious about the motivation of any such individuals. I can see in the very short term career advancement, but in the next 5 or 10 years, unless the republic is overthrown and the insane clown and his posse remain in charge it's not going to end well for them
How many of Hitler's top generals did well out of it...?
“after the state banned abortion, dozens more pregnant and postpartum women died in Texas hospitals than had in pre-pandemic years, which ProPublica used as a baseline to avoid COVID-19-related distortions. As the maternal mortality rate dropped nationally, ProPublica found, it rose substantially in Texas.”
https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-abortion-ban-sepsis-maternal-mortality-analysis
“Without preconditions”… Putin would see that as surrender.
There are certain non negotiable: Ukraine must be an independent sovereign state that has a viable landmass. Putin’s demands do not allow for that. Hence no point in negotiations unless Putin accepts the baseline.
And no, Ukraine should not be forced to give stuff up to secure the baseline
The reality is that Putin/Russia is not yet exhausted. The frustration is that they were getting close to that point - we saw it with the collapse in Syria, with the loss of support from Iran, with the dependence on North Korea. Trumps behaviour has reenergised them and given them hope they can win. So they will fight on in pursuit of the unacceptable.
And more people will die.
And Vance has the temerity to make (legitimate) criticisms of Europe in regard to free speech.
Embarrassing, clueless, and most are not fit to wear the shirt
Well done Moyes with Everton though
Which is not something you can say about the simultaneous dismissal of three Judge Advocates General.
So I was pleased to learn that the Loser is playing more golf than he did in his first term:
"Yet, by the standard of the first month of his second term, Trump’s 2017 absences from the White House were downright modest.
As of noon on Thursday, Trump will have been president for 31 full days. He will have spent all or part of 16 of those days at four Trump Organization properties. He will have played golf on 10 of those days. He will have spent 19 nights at the White House and 12 nights at properties owned by his private business. He will have spent precisely zero Friday or Saturday nights at the executive mansion. He will have played golf every weekend day except for this past Sunday, when he opted to take the presidential limousine for a spin at Daytona International Speedway instead."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/20/trump-second-term-golfing-resorts/
The only downside of all this golf -- for the nation and the world -- is that it prevents the Loser from being a check, at least occasionally, on Musk and company. I know, it sounds weird to think of the Loser being a force for moderation, even occasionally, but it has happened.
(For the record: If Musk has a plan behind all this disruption, I have not discovered it.)
Just look at these paragraphs from the AP story.
Hegseth called Brown unqualified solely because he's Black. Then they fired him... and replaced him with a white guy so indisputably unqualified that he requires a Presidential waiver.
This is what "merit" means to them.
https://bsky.app/profile/maxkennerly.bsky.social/post/3liq7jc73ac2y
For those not familiar with the situation - the CSU is only in Bavaria, the CDU everywhere except Bavaria. They are 2 parties, but have a joint manifesto for the federal elections, and a joint Chancellor-candidate. The closest UK equivalent is the Scottish Green Party and English + Welsh Green Party being 2 parties - but you probably wouldn't separate the Scottish Green vote total from the English + Welsh Green vote total for your headline election results. Except of course Bavaria is a lot bigger than Scotland (13.4 million vs 5.4 million), and CDU/CSU are a lot bigger than the Green Parties of Britain.
There's very little chance of a minority government for various reasons. Very likely Union+SPD, or if they don't have a majority Union+SPD+Greens. Small chance of Union+Greens if they have a majority. Very little chance of anything else.
Anyone hoping for any significant rapid changes in German foreign policy are likely to be disappointed, though Merz may provide Taurus missiles once Chancellor (which might take a while), if that is even still relevant by then. Union+Greens would be the most likely option to offer more weapons to Ukraine.
Merz I agree should be better for Zelensky than Scholz was as Chancellor, the AfD would obviously be even worse for Ukraine
That's what the illiberals want.