It's hard to know exactly what an appropriate response to this is in relation to the USA, but I do know one thing: the meeting of European leaders this Sunday could not have had a clearer impetus.
If they collectively bottle taking decisive measures to allow Europe to stand alone in defence within 3-5 years, including defending Ukraine to the extent that we are capable of doing so, starting Monday, every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office.
If things weren't clear before, they surely are now.
Unfortunately Germany won't be in a position to promise increased defence spending because that utter shit Merz refused to talk about reforming the debt brake on any of the dozen times the outgoing government asked him to consider it over the last year or more.
Whether something can be done before the new parliament (that has a 1 third blocking minority AfD plus die Linke) convenes isn't certain. Today die Linke threatened to go to the constitutional court if an attempt is made using the old parliament.
But you know there are historical reasons Germany is reticent to get involved in war in Ukraine. Why don’t you just be honest and explain to us that you understand that, rather than hide behind those reasons in your criticism of Merz?
Huh? Should I bother answering this? I'll just say your reply to me doesn't address anything I wrote in any way whatsoever and leave it at that.
UK journalism often refers to this German reticence - should we ignore it when UK journalists do this? Or is it a real thing, the sound of German language in Ukraine winds up Pro Russia Ukrainians or something? It’s not all about 2nd WW? is it first WW or prior to that?
What's it got to do with the German constitutional debt brake?
You seem reticent to explain there is or isn’t this reticence thing to us - why?
I was talking about the debt brake - which is why I ask you what your comments have to do with the debt brake?
But on the issue of sensitivity in Germany around German military involvement in Ukraine (and elsewhere) for historical reasons, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'll give you one hint - @JosiasJessop is an idiot.
Okay, so you disagree.
So let me ask a question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last? A hundred years? Two hundred years? The Baltics? Poland? The Rhine?
It's hard to know exactly what an appropriate response to this is in relation to the USA, but I do know one thing: the meeting of European leaders this Sunday could not have had a clearer impetus.
If they collectively bottle taking decisive measures to allow Europe to stand alone in defence within 3-5 years, including defending Ukraine to the extent that we are capable of doing so, starting Monday, every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office.
If things weren't clear before, they surely are now.
Unfortunately Germany won't be in a position to promise increased defence spending because that utter shit Merz refused to talk about reforming the debt brake on any of the dozen times the outgoing government asked him to consider it over the last year or more.
Whether something can be done before the new parliament (that has a 1 third blocking minority AfD plus die Linke) convenes isn't certain. Today die Linke threatened to go to the constitutional court if an attempt is made using the old parliament.
But you know there are historical reasons Germany is reticent to get involved in war in Ukraine. Why don’t you just be honest and explain to us that you understand that, rather than hide behind those reasons in your criticism of Merz?
Huh? Should I bother answering this? I'll just say your reply to me doesn't address anything I wrote in any way whatsoever and leave it at that.
UK journalism often refers to this German reticence - should we ignore it when UK journalists do this? Or is it a real thing, the sound of German language in Ukraine winds up Pro Russia Ukrainians or something? It’s not all about 2nd WW? is it first WW or prior to that?
What's it got to do with the German constitutional debt brake?
You seem reticent to explain there is or isn’t this reticence thing to us - why?
I was talking about the debt brake - which is why I ask you what your comments have to do with the debt brake?
But on the issue of sensitivity in Germany around German military involvement in Ukraine (and elsewhere) for historical reasons, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'll give you one hint - @JosiasJessop is an idiot.
Okay, so you disagree.
So let me ask a question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last? A hundred years? Two hundred years? The Baltics? Poland? The Rhine?
You literally couldn't see any difference between things that happened 80 years ago and things that happened 200 years ago!
It's hard to know exactly what an appropriate response to this is in relation to the USA, but I do know one thing: the meeting of European leaders this Sunday could not have had a clearer impetus.
If they collectively bottle taking decisive measures to allow Europe to stand alone in defence within 3-5 years, including defending Ukraine to the extent that we are capable of doing so, starting Monday, every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office.
If things weren't clear before, they surely are now.
Unfortunately Germany won't be in a position to promise increased defence spending because that utter shit Merz refused to talk about reforming the debt brake on any of the dozen times the outgoing government asked him to consider it over the last year or more.
Whether something can be done before the new parliament (that has a 1 third blocking minority AfD plus die Linke) convenes isn't certain. Today die Linke threatened to go to the constitutional court if an attempt is made using the old parliament.
But you know there are historical reasons Germany is reticent to get involved in war in Ukraine. Why don’t you just be honest and explain to us that you understand that, rather than hide behind those reasons in your criticism of Merz?
Huh? Should I bother answering this? I'll just say your reply to me doesn't address anything I wrote in any way whatsoever and leave it at that.
UK journalism often refers to this German reticence - should we ignore it when UK journalists do this? Or is it a real thing, the sound of German language in Ukraine winds up Pro Russia Ukrainians or something? It’s not all about 2nd WW? is it first WW or prior to that?
What's it got to do with the German constitutional debt brake?
You seem reticent to explain there is or isn’t this reticence thing to us - why?
I was talking about the debt brake - which is why I ask you what your comments have to do with the debt brake?
But on the issue of sensitivity in Germany around German military involvement in Ukraine (and elsewhere) for historical reasons, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'll give you one hint - @JosiasJessop is an idiot.
Okay, so you disagree.
So let me ask a question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last? A hundred years? Two hundred years? The Baltics? Poland? The Rhine?
You literally couldn't see any difference between things that happened 80 years ago and things that happened 200 years ago!
Of course i can see the difference.
So please answer my question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction?
Evidently, in your mind it is greater than eighty years and less than two hundred. I'm just interested in your view on this, and your reasoning.
But I also think that the 'sensitivities' stuff is just rubbish after eighty years. An excuse for inaction, playing into Russia's hands.
Well, I slept like absolute shit. Glad I recorded all the stuff I needed yesterday (just barely ran out of time almost got podcast released). Will be up sometime this morning probably.
One of the few upsides of Trump's inconsistency and volatility is that Zelensky isn't wrong about the spat being bad, but perhaps recoverable.
I'm surprised that anybody's remotely surprised to discover that Trump is a nasty, unpleasant, rude bully.
All I've learnt today is that Vance is at least as bad, and possibly even more dangerous, being marginally more intelligent.
I'm reminded of the "let's go back in time and kill Hitler" stories that end up with someone just as evil but a bit more clever and ruthless running the Reich.
Didn’t Stephen fry do one like that? Sterilised the Jews and used them to help win the war.
For 80 years the US has been the linchpin of the Western alliance. Now in a matter of weeks it has done an 180 degree turn and seems to want to ally itself with Russia rather than against it.
Were I an Israeli politician, I'd be saying to myself: if the US can do this to long-standing allies, if it can betray a country invaded by those wanting to obliterate its existence, my country can't be certain it won't do the same to us too, one day. And from that realisation policies will flow, policies many of us will not like at all.
The US can no longer be trusted.
Israel has never trusted the US. It’s why they build their own tanks & have their own nuclear deterrent.
They’re very happy to have US support if it’s available to them of course, but that support has not been there when they might have appreciated it in the past & might not be in the future - a reality they are very keenly aware of.
We need to do that. Israel is the only nation that doesn't need the US to set the software for its F35's.
Just what I was about to say. Britain needs to be more like Israel in the defence of our realm.
But not like Israel in offence against our neighbours.
Can you name one neighbour Israel has ever attacked that wasn't seeking to destroy Israel or that they weren't already at war with?
If someone is seeking to attack you then hitting them back isn't wrong, its self-defence. And hitting them back harder than they hit you, if you can, is perfectly reasonable too.
Maybe if Israel's neighbours stop trying to destroy Israel, then Israel wouldn't have to act anymore. Ever think about that?
Can I name one neighbour Israel has ever attacked that wasn’t seeking to destroy Israel or that they weren’t already at war with? Yes. Syria. This week.
Shows your ignorance, Syria has been at war with Israel since 1948. Syria has never not been at war with Israel.
There hasn’t been active fighting all that time. The new Syrian government has made no moves against Israel. They’ve sought to reassure Israel, pushing out Hezbollah, saying they won’t let Iranians use Syrian territory to attack Israel. Yet Israel launched multiple air strikes against Syria and moved their troops into the UN buffer zone. This week, Israel has launched a new round of air strikes against Syria, without provocation. Israel has said they’re to protect the Druze minority, but the Druze minority are supporting the new Syrian government and have joined their new assembly.
They are at war. Wars are fought between states and not just governments and Israel is well within her rights to prosecute a perpetual war it has been stuck in for decades however she sees best for her self-defence.
War is a provocation. Your trying to rewrite history by lying and saying that Israel and Syria are not at war is just flagrant dishonesty. If the new government chooses to reach a peace agreement, I'd be delighted, but until then they are in a state of war.
As was pointed out earlier, Israel has the same issue as Ukraine. If the US decides it's not in their interest to have Israel as their ally in the Middle East (other options available) it could all become very difficult for them. They are in a strategic blind alley. The more they seek war or constant war, the less likely they can achieve peace. Constant war though gives them cover for some of the more outrageous activities that go on there.
I've never been a place where the populace are so neurotic about passers by.
It's hard to know exactly what an appropriate response to this is in relation to the USA, but I do know one thing: the meeting of European leaders this Sunday could not have had a clearer impetus.
If they collectively bottle taking decisive measures to allow Europe to stand alone in defence within 3-5 years, including defending Ukraine to the extent that we are capable of doing so, starting Monday, every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office.
If things weren't clear before, they surely are now.
Unfortunately Germany won't be in a position to promise increased defence spending because that utter shit Merz refused to talk about reforming the debt brake on any of the dozen times the outgoing government asked him to consider it over the last year or more.
Whether something can be done before the new parliament (that has a 1 third blocking minority AfD plus die Linke) convenes isn't certain. Today die Linke threatened to go to the constitutional court if an attempt is made using the old parliament.
But you know there are historical reasons Germany is reticent to get involved in war in Ukraine. Why don’t you just be honest and explain to us that you understand that, rather than hide behind those reasons in your criticism of Merz?
Huh? Should I bother answering this? I'll just say your reply to me doesn't address anything I wrote in any way whatsoever and leave it at that.
UK journalism often refers to this German reticence - should we ignore it when UK journalists do this? Or is it a real thing, the sound of German language in Ukraine winds up Pro Russia Ukrainians or something? It’s not all about 2nd WW? is it first WW or prior to that?
What's it got to do with the German constitutional debt brake?
You seem reticent to explain there is or isn’t this reticence thing to us - why?
I was talking about the debt brake - which is why I ask you what your comments have to do with the debt brake?
But on the issue of sensitivity in Germany around German military involvement in Ukraine (and elsewhere) for historical reasons, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'll give you one hint - @JosiasJessop is an idiot.
Okay, so you disagree.
So let me ask a question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last? A hundred years? Two hundred years? The Baltics? Poland? The Rhine?
You literally couldn't see any difference between things that happened 80 years ago and things that happened 200 years ago!
Of course i can see the difference.
So please answer my question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction?
Evidently, in your mind it is greater than eighty years and less than two hundred. I'm just interested in your view on this, and your reasoning.
But I also think that the 'sensitivities' stuff is just rubbish after eighty years. An excuse for inaction, playing into Russia's hands.
Personally, I think the West should have either from the start given Ukraine whatever support it needed to defeat Russia, or not bothered. I blame Biden for his caution and Germany has consistently followed the American lead, at least up until Trump came back.
If you look at the last decades Germany has been reluctant to get involved in any foreign military adventures. The first combat mission was Kosovo 1999, and since that Afghanistan - though that was intended as a rebuilding mission. The US (and Britain and France for that matter) have been far more gung-ho in terms of foreign military adventures, and are nuclear powers as well. Expecting Germany to lead any military operations is a bit unrealistic.
If it turns out that Biden was all for NATO planes bombing the shit out of the Russian columns when they first advanced in 2022, and was only dissuaded by the German government I'll revise my opinion.
But also you seem to have some weird obsession with Germany, when other European allies, especially France and Italy, have provided a fraction of the support. Indeed you weirdly praise France in the same breath as condemning Germany.
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
It’s not obvious to me how much this is was a premeditated shakedown, and how much just Trump doing his daily tv show with Vance (a seeming legitimate Ukrainophobe) shit-stirring from his sofa.
There seems to be a real MAGA meme that somehow Zelensky has hoodwinked the US into wasting untold treasure on the war. I’ve no idea how widely such an idea has taken hold of the American right, but Occam’s Razor suggests it emanates directly from Russian psy-ops.
I don’t blame Starmer for being at a loss. On one level, today’s drama is simply a bust-up in an office. It’s certainly too early to be cancelling state visits or Love Actually moments, as gratifying as that might feel.
Zelensky should point out that they've destroyed 10k Russian tanks.
Russian tanks which were built to kill Americans and now never will.
That Russian tanks, or any other tanks (Canada not having any to speak of) never are and never were going to kill Americans - unless the Americans sent their boys to Russia, or close to it - is essentially the problem.
Our history has been lucky in that the US has always - if sometimes after a bit of thinking time - concluded that it is better off with a prosperous and democratic Europe, rather than the rubble-strewn wasteland that we Europeans keep trying to turn it into. The alternative history where the US pulls up its drawbridge is the bullet we’ve always dodged - until now.
Reform's support won't be affected, because most of their supporters care almost entirely about domestic topics (with immigration being included in that definition) and aren't really interested in foreign affairs.
It puts a limit on Reform's support: there are potential Reform switchers who find Farage's cuddling up to Trump and weasel words about Trump off-putting.
It's a point of vulnerability that all three of the other main parties will exploit.
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
All the evidence is that they cannot. Hungary! Ireland (1% on defence), Spain, etcetcetc Oh we have fine words, but that's where it ends.
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
All the evidence is that they cannot. Hungary! Ireland (1% on defence), Spain, etcetcetc Oh we have fine words, but that's where it ends.
Baltics, Nordics, and a few others (Poland, maybe us) could be more reliable.
Not if we arm up properly and ensure Putin would get thrown back if he moves even an inch into the Baltics.
When I read the history of the 30s I sometimes think the most remarkable thing is the scale of re-armament that went on in those final peacetime years. The appeasement and attempts at peace and eventual failure is all, with hindsight at least, eminently predictable, but it was the preparations for it - not just numbers and kit, but science, R&D, and organisation - that eventually saved the day.
I mean jeez, my brain can't take these people anymore, Elon Muskovite is literally on X slagging Zelensky off for not dressing for the White House, a whole fucking day since Elon danced around the US Cabinet table in a black tech support t-shirt and shit black jeans and a MAGA fucking cap.
Honestly the "projection" thing in therapy needs to have degrees and a whole new SI unit.
Three Elons of Projection this morning.
Since when was any true American interested in dressing properly, anyway?
These are people who go on entire extended world trips wearing their gym kit.
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
They never have before. What makes you think they will start now?oh and apart from the UK non of the members of Five Eyes are in Europe and none of the Eutopean countries are in a position to replace the US hardware. So you comment fails on all points.
It's hard to know exactly what an appropriate response to this is in relation to the USA, but I do know one thing: the meeting of European leaders this Sunday could not have had a clearer impetus.
If they collectively bottle taking decisive measures to allow Europe to stand alone in defence within 3-5 years, including defending Ukraine to the extent that we are capable of doing so, starting Monday, every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office.
If things weren't clear before, they surely are now.
Unfortunately Germany won't be in a position to promise increased defence spending because that utter shit Merz refused to talk about reforming the debt brake on any of the dozen times the outgoing government asked him to consider it over the last year or more.
Whether something can be done before the new parliament (that has a 1 third blocking minority AfD plus die Linke) convenes isn't certain. Today die Linke threatened to go to the constitutional court if an attempt is made using the old parliament.
But you know there are historical reasons Germany is reticent to get involved in war in Ukraine. Why don’t you just be honest and explain to us that you understand that, rather than hide behind those reasons in your criticism of Merz?
Huh? Should I bother answering this? I'll just say your reply to me doesn't address anything I wrote in any way whatsoever and leave it at that.
UK journalism often refers to this German reticence - should we ignore it when UK journalists do this? Or is it a real thing, the sound of German language in Ukraine winds up Pro Russia Ukrainians or something? It’s not all about 2nd WW? is it first WW or prior to that?
What's it got to do with the German constitutional debt brake?
You seem reticent to explain there is or isn’t this reticence thing to us - why?
I was talking about the debt brake - which is why I ask you what your comments have to do with the debt brake?
But on the issue of sensitivity in Germany around German military involvement in Ukraine (and elsewhere) for historical reasons, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'll give you one hint - @JosiasJessop is an idiot.
Okay, so you disagree.
So let me ask a question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last? A hundred years? Two hundred years? The Baltics? Poland? The Rhine?
You literally couldn't see any difference between things that happened 80 years ago and things that happened 200 years ago!
Of course i can see the difference.
So please answer my question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction?
Evidently, in your mind it is greater than eighty years and less than two hundred. I'm just interested in your view on this, and your reasoning.
But I also think that the 'sensitivities' stuff is just rubbish after eighty years. An excuse for inaction, playing into Russia's hands.
Personally, I think the West should have either from the start given Ukraine whatever support it needed to defeat Russia, or not bothered. I blame Biden for his caution and Germany has consistently followed the American lead, at least up until Trump came back.
If you look at the last decades Germany has been reluctant to get involved in any foreign military adventures. The first combat mission was Kosovo 1999, and since that Afghanistan - though that was intended as a rebuilding mission. The US (and Britain and France for that matter) have been far more gung-ho in terms of foreign military adventures, and are nuclear powers as well. Expecting Germany to lead any military operations is a bit unrealistic.
If it turns out that Biden was all for NATO planes bombing the shit out of the Russian columns when they first advanced in 2022, and was only dissuaded by the German government I'll revise my opinion.
But also you seem to have some weird obsession with Germany, when other European allies, especially France and Italy, have provided a fraction of the support. Indeed you weirdly praise France in the same breath as condemning Germany.
I was going to give your comment a 'like', then read your final paragraph.
There are different sorts of 'support': humanitarian, military, financial, pledged, delivered, etc, etc.
France (and the UK...) have given missiles that allow Ukraine to strike very long distances. These are exceptionally useful to Ukraine. Germany refuses to give their very useful missiles. Surely you can see that's a discredit to Germany? Ditto the disgraceful delay in allowing Leopards to go over.
Germany's done many good things for Ukraine. But don't pretend they've been perfect. (*)
Also, as we are seeing in the USA, talk matters. Johnson, Sunak, and now Starmer have all been very clear in their support for Ukraine. As has Macron in France. Germany under Scholz seemed rather more equivocal. And yes, they followed the USA like a little poodle. Perhaps some leadership, and saying "These are our values, and Russia is against them!" might have been better than: "We'll just follow the USA."
But you still have not answered my question...
(*) Neither have we; but we shamefully had less to give.
It's hard to know exactly what an appropriate response to this is in relation to the USA, but I do know one thing: the meeting of European leaders this Sunday could not have had a clearer impetus.
If they collectively bottle taking decisive measures to allow Europe to stand alone in defence within 3-5 years, including defending Ukraine to the extent that we are capable of doing so, starting Monday, every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office.
If things weren't clear before, they surely are now.
Unfortunately Germany won't be in a position to promise increased defence spending because that utter shit Merz refused to talk about reforming the debt brake on any of the dozen times the outgoing government asked him to consider it over the last year or more.
Whether something can be done before the new parliament (that has a 1 third blocking minority AfD plus die Linke) convenes isn't certain. Today die Linke threatened to go to the constitutional court if an attempt is made using the old parliament.
But you know there are historical reasons Germany is reticent to get involved in war in Ukraine. Why don’t you just be honest and explain to us that you understand that, rather than hide behind those reasons in your criticism of Merz?
Huh? Should I bother answering this? I'll just say your reply to me doesn't address anything I wrote in any way whatsoever and leave it at that.
UK journalism often refers to this German reticence - should we ignore it when UK journalists do this? Or is it a real thing, the sound of German language in Ukraine winds up Pro Russia Ukrainians or something? It’s not all about 2nd WW? is it first WW or prior to that?
What's it got to do with the German constitutional debt brake?
You seem reticent to explain there is or isn’t this reticence thing to us - why?
I was talking about the debt brake - which is why I ask you what your comments have to do with the debt brake?
But on the issue of sensitivity in Germany around German military involvement in Ukraine (and elsewhere) for historical reasons, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'll give you one hint - @JosiasJessop is an idiot.
Okay, so you disagree.
So let me ask a question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last? A hundred years? Two hundred years? The Baltics? Poland? The Rhine?
You literally couldn't see any difference between things that happened 80 years ago and things that happened 200 years ago!
Of course i can see the difference.
So please answer my question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction?
Evidently, in your mind it is greater than eighty years and less than two hundred. I'm just interested in your view on this, and your reasoning.
But I also think that the 'sensitivities' stuff is just rubbish after eighty years. An excuse for inaction, playing into Russia's hands.
Personally, I think the West should have either from the start given Ukraine whatever support it needed to defeat Russia, or not bothered. I blame Biden for his caution and Germany has consistently followed the American lead, at least up until Trump came back.
If you look at the last decades Germany has been reluctant to get involved in any foreign military adventures. The first combat mission was Kosovo 1999, and since that Afghanistan - though that was intended as a rebuilding mission. The US (and Britain and France for that matter) have been far more gung-ho in terms of foreign military adventures, and are nuclear powers as well. Expecting Germany to lead any military operations is a bit unrealistic.
If it turns out that Biden was all for NATO planes bombing the shit out of the Russian columns when they first advanced in 2022, and was only dissuaded by the German government I'll revise my opinion.
But also you seem to have some weird obsession with Germany, when other European allies, especially France and Italy, have provided a fraction of the support. Indeed you weirdly praise France in the same breath as condemning Germany.
I was going to give your comment a 'like', then read your final paragraph.
There are different sorts of 'support': humanitarian, military, financial, pledged, delivered, etc, etc.
France (and the UK...) have given missiles that allow Ukraine to strike very long distances. These are exceptionally useful to Ukraine. Germany refuses to give their very useful missiles. Surely you can see that's a discredit to Germany? Ditto the disgraceful delay in allowing Leopards to go over.
Germany's done many good things for Ukraine. But don't pretend they've been perfect. (*)
Also, as we are seeing in the USA, talk matters. Johnson, Sunak, and now Starmer have all been very clear in their support for Ukraine. As has Macron in France. Germany under Scholz seemed rather more equivocal. And yes, they followed the USA like a little poodle. Perhaps some leadership, and saying "These are our values, and Russia is against them!" might have been better than: "We'll just follow the USA."
But you still have not answered my question...
(*) Neither have we; but we shamefully had less to give.
But your question was a different one to the one asked. Do the events of 80 years ago still affect German foreign policy? My answer is yes. Should they? Well it depends.
But your "it's just an excuse" - what exactly are you referring to?
You mention tanks. Can you point me to the bit where Germany said no to Leopard tanks (for 2 weeks btw) "because of what we did in the second world war"?
Germany said, in effect, that it wouldn't supply tanks unless the US also promised to. I remember pointing this out to you at the time and you were also then very insistent that this was just "an excuse" and that even if the US promised tanks Germany still wouldn't. In fact Germany and the US promised tanks on the same day.
It's hard to know exactly what an appropriate response to this is in relation to the USA, but I do know one thing: the meeting of European leaders this Sunday could not have had a clearer impetus.
If they collectively bottle taking decisive measures to allow Europe to stand alone in defence within 3-5 years, including defending Ukraine to the extent that we are capable of doing so, starting Monday, every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office.
If things weren't clear before, they surely are now.
Unfortunately Germany won't be in a position to promise increased defence spending because that utter shit Merz refused to talk about reforming the debt brake on any of the dozen times the outgoing government asked him to consider it over the last year or more.
Whether something can be done before the new parliament (that has a 1 third blocking minority AfD plus die Linke) convenes isn't certain. Today die Linke threatened to go to the constitutional court if an attempt is made using the old parliament.
But you know there are historical reasons Germany is reticent to get involved in war in Ukraine. Why don’t you just be honest and explain to us that you understand that, rather than hide behind those reasons in your criticism of Merz?
Huh? Should I bother answering this? I'll just say your reply to me doesn't address anything I wrote in any way whatsoever and leave it at that.
UK journalism often refers to this German reticence - should we ignore it when UK journalists do this? Or is it a real thing, the sound of German language in Ukraine winds up Pro Russia Ukrainians or something? It’s not all about 2nd WW? is it first WW or prior to that?
What's it got to do with the German constitutional debt brake?
You seem reticent to explain there is or isn’t this reticence thing to us - why?
I was talking about the debt brake - which is why I ask you what your comments have to do with the debt brake?
But on the issue of sensitivity in Germany around German military involvement in Ukraine (and elsewhere) for historical reasons, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'll give you one hint - @JosiasJessop is an idiot.
Okay, so you disagree.
So let me ask a question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last? A hundred years? Two hundred years? The Baltics? Poland? The Rhine?
You literally couldn't see any difference between things that happened 80 years ago and things that happened 200 years ago!
Of course i can see the difference.
So please answer my question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction?
Evidently, in your mind it is greater than eighty years and less than two hundred. I'm just interested in your view on this, and your reasoning.
But I also think that the 'sensitivities' stuff is just rubbish after eighty years. An excuse for inaction, playing into Russia's hands.
Personally, I think the West should have either from the start given Ukraine whatever support it needed to defeat Russia, or not bothered. I blame Biden for his caution and Germany has consistently followed the American lead, at least up until Trump came back.
If you look at the last decades Germany has been reluctant to get involved in any foreign military adventures. The first combat mission was Kosovo 1999, and since that Afghanistan - though that was intended as a rebuilding mission. The US (and Britain and France for that matter) have been far more gung-ho in terms of foreign military adventures, and are nuclear powers as well. Expecting Germany to lead any military operations is a bit unrealistic.
If it turns out that Biden was all for NATO planes bombing the shit out of the Russian columns when they first advanced in 2022, and was only dissuaded by the German government I'll revise my opinion.
But also you seem to have some weird obsession with Germany, when other European allies, especially France and Italy, have provided a fraction of the support. Indeed you weirdly praise France in the same breath as condemning Germany.
I was going to give your comment a 'like', then read your final paragraph.
There are different sorts of 'support': humanitarian, military, financial, pledged, delivered, etc, etc.
France (and the UK...) have given missiles that allow Ukraine to strike very long distances. These are exceptionally useful to Ukraine. Germany refuses to give their very useful missiles. Surely you can see that's a discredit to Germany? Ditto the disgraceful delay in allowing Leopards to go over.
Germany's done many good things for Ukraine. But don't pretend they've been perfect. (*)
Also, as we are seeing in the USA, talk matters. Johnson, Sunak, and now Starmer have all been very clear in their support for Ukraine. As has Macron in France. Germany under Scholz seemed rather more equivocal. And yes, they followed the USA like a little poodle. Perhaps some leadership, and saying "These are our values, and Russia is against them!" might have been better than: "We'll just follow the USA."
But you still have not answered my question...
(*) Neither have we; but we shamefully had less to give.
I doubt the issue, nowadays is about any intrinsic German reluctance to become a military power, but about a very sensible sensitivity to how almost all of the peoples living to their east might feel about seeing German troops on their soil, given the barbarity and depravity they meted out to their parents and grandparents.
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
All the evidence is that they cannot. Hungary! Ireland (1% on defence), Spain, etcetcetc Oh we have fine words, but that's where it ends.
You're using Ireland and Spain, both of whom didn't flight in WW2, as examples of how European countries think about defense?
It's hard to know exactly what an appropriate response to this is in relation to the USA, but I do know one thing: the meeting of European leaders this Sunday could not have had a clearer impetus.
If they collectively bottle taking decisive measures to allow Europe to stand alone in defence within 3-5 years, including defending Ukraine to the extent that we are capable of doing so, starting Monday, every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office.
If things weren't clear before, they surely are now.
Unfortunately Germany won't be in a position to promise increased defence spending because that utter shit Merz refused to talk about reforming the debt brake on any of the dozen times the outgoing government asked him to consider it over the last year or more.
Whether something can be done before the new parliament (that has a 1 third blocking minority AfD plus die Linke) convenes isn't certain. Today die Linke threatened to go to the constitutional court if an attempt is made using the old parliament.
But you know there are historical reasons Germany is reticent to get involved in war in Ukraine. Why don’t you just be honest and explain to us that you understand that, rather than hide behind those reasons in your criticism of Merz?
Huh? Should I bother answering this? I'll just say your reply to me doesn't address anything I wrote in any way whatsoever and leave it at that.
UK journalism often refers to this German reticence - should we ignore it when UK journalists do this? Or is it a real thing, the sound of German language in Ukraine winds up Pro Russia Ukrainians or something? It’s not all about 2nd WW? is it first WW or prior to that?
What's it got to do with the German constitutional debt brake?
You seem reticent to explain there is or isn’t this reticence thing to us - why?
I was talking about the debt brake - which is why I ask you what your comments have to do with the debt brake?
But on the issue of sensitivity in Germany around German military involvement in Ukraine (and elsewhere) for historical reasons, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'll give you one hint - @JosiasJessop is an idiot.
Okay, so you disagree.
So let me ask a question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last? A hundred years? Two hundred years? The Baltics? Poland? The Rhine?
You literally couldn't see any difference between things that happened 80 years ago and things that happened 200 years ago!
Of course i can see the difference.
So please answer my question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction?
Evidently, in your mind it is greater than eighty years and less than two hundred. I'm just interested in your view on this, and your reasoning.
But I also think that the 'sensitivities' stuff is just rubbish after eighty years. An excuse for inaction, playing into Russia's hands.
Personally, I think the West should have either from the start given Ukraine whatever support it needed to defeat Russia, or not bothered. I blame Biden for his caution and Germany has consistently followed the American lead, at least up until Trump came back.
If you look at the last decades Germany has been reluctant to get involved in any foreign military adventures. The first combat mission was Kosovo 1999, and since that Afghanistan - though that was intended as a rebuilding mission. The US (and Britain and France for that matter) have been far more gung-ho in terms of foreign military adventures, and are nuclear powers as well. Expecting Germany to lead any military operations is a bit unrealistic.
If it turns out that Biden was all for NATO planes bombing the shit out of the Russian columns when they first advanced in 2022, and was only dissuaded by the German government I'll revise my opinion.
But also you seem to have some weird obsession with Germany, when other European allies, especially France and Italy, have provided a fraction of the support. Indeed you weirdly praise France in the same breath as condemning Germany.
I was going to give your comment a 'like', then read your final paragraph.
There are different sorts of 'support': humanitarian, military, financial, pledged, delivered, etc, etc.
France (and the UK...) have given missiles that allow Ukraine to strike very long distances. These are exceptionally useful to Ukraine. Germany refuses to give their very useful missiles. Surely you can see that's a discredit to Germany? Ditto the disgraceful delay in allowing Leopards to go over.
Germany's done many good things for Ukraine. But don't pretend they've been perfect. (*)
Also, as we are seeing in the USA, talk matters. Johnson, Sunak, and now Starmer have all been very clear in their support for Ukraine. As has Macron in France. Germany under Scholz seemed rather more equivocal. And yes, they followed the USA like a little poodle. Perhaps some leadership, and saying "These are our values, and Russia is against them!" might have been better than: "We'll just follow the USA."
But you still have not answered my question...
(*) Neither have we; but we shamefully had less to give.
I doubt the issue, nowadays is about any intrinsic German reluctance to become a military power, but about a very sensible sensitivity to how almost all of the peoples living to their east might feel about seeing German troops on their soil, given the barbarity and depravity they meted out to their parents and grandparents.
I know. But oddly enough, countries like Poland suffered terribly from German atrocities eighty years ago, and now they're both friends in NATO, with regular training exercises together.
I don't think the 'sensitivity' is necessarily sensible. Some of it is an excuse not to do the right thing, and some of it simply pro-Russian propaganda.
It's hard to know exactly what an appropriate response to this is in relation to the USA, but I do know one thing: the meeting of European leaders this Sunday could not have had a clearer impetus.
If they collectively bottle taking decisive measures to allow Europe to stand alone in defence within 3-5 years, including defending Ukraine to the extent that we are capable of doing so, starting Monday, every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office.
If things weren't clear before, they surely are now.
Unfortunately Germany won't be in a position to promise increased defence spending because that utter shit Merz refused to talk about reforming the debt brake on any of the dozen times the outgoing government asked him to consider it over the last year or more.
Whether something can be done before the new parliament (that has a 1 third blocking minority AfD plus die Linke) convenes isn't certain. Today die Linke threatened to go to the constitutional court if an attempt is made using the old parliament.
But you know there are historical reasons Germany is reticent to get involved in war in Ukraine. Why don’t you just be honest and explain to us that you understand that, rather than hide behind those reasons in your criticism of Merz?
Huh? Should I bother answering this? I'll just say your reply to me doesn't address anything I wrote in any way whatsoever and leave it at that.
UK journalism often refers to this German reticence - should we ignore it when UK journalists do this? Or is it a real thing, the sound of German language in Ukraine winds up Pro Russia Ukrainians or something? It’s not all about 2nd WW? is it first WW or prior to that?
What's it got to do with the German constitutional debt brake?
You seem reticent to explain there is or isn’t this reticence thing to us - why?
I was talking about the debt brake - which is why I ask you what your comments have to do with the debt brake?
But on the issue of sensitivity in Germany around German military involvement in Ukraine (and elsewhere) for historical reasons, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'll give you one hint - @JosiasJessop is an idiot.
Okay, so you disagree.
So let me ask a question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last? A hundred years? Two hundred years? The Baltics? Poland? The Rhine?
You literally couldn't see any difference between things that happened 80 years ago and things that happened 200 years ago!
Of course i can see the difference.
So please answer my question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction?
Evidently, in your mind it is greater than eighty years and less than two hundred. I'm just interested in your view on this, and your reasoning.
But I also think that the 'sensitivities' stuff is just rubbish after eighty years. An excuse for inaction, playing into Russia's hands.
Personally, I think the West should have either from the start given Ukraine whatever support it needed to defeat Russia, or not bothered. I blame Biden for his caution and Germany has consistently followed the American lead, at least up until Trump came back.
If you look at the last decades Germany has been reluctant to get involved in any foreign military adventures. The first combat mission was Kosovo 1999, and since that Afghanistan - though that was intended as a rebuilding mission. The US (and Britain and France for that matter) have been far more gung-ho in terms of foreign military adventures, and are nuclear powers as well. Expecting Germany to lead any military operations is a bit unrealistic.
If it turns out that Biden was all for NATO planes bombing the shit out of the Russian columns when they first advanced in 2022, and was only dissuaded by the German government I'll revise my opinion.
But also you seem to have some weird obsession with Germany, when other European allies, especially France and Italy, have provided a fraction of the support. Indeed you weirdly praise France in the same breath as condemning Germany.
I was going to give your comment a 'like', then read your final paragraph.
There are different sorts of 'support': humanitarian, military, financial, pledged, delivered, etc, etc.
France (and the UK...) have given missiles that allow Ukraine to strike very long distances. These are exceptionally useful to Ukraine. Germany refuses to give their very useful missiles. Surely you can see that's a discredit to Germany? Ditto the disgraceful delay in allowing Leopards to go over.
Germany's done many good things for Ukraine. But don't pretend they've been perfect. (*)
Also, as we are seeing in the USA, talk matters. Johnson, Sunak, and now Starmer have all been very clear in their support for Ukraine. As has Macron in France. Germany under Scholz seemed rather more equivocal. And yes, they followed the USA like a little poodle. Perhaps some leadership, and saying "These are our values, and Russia is against them!" might have been better than: "We'll just follow the USA."
But you still have not answered my question...
(*) Neither have we; but we shamefully had less to give.
But your question was a different one to the one asked. Do the events of 80 years ago still affect German foreign policy? My answer is yes. Should they? Well it depends.
(Snip)
My question was quite clear, and *not* the answer you give above.
You name-checked me and called me an 'idiot'. Fair enough. But you cannot even answer (as far as I can see) the simple question I posed. Here it is again: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last?
Evidently eighty years. But not two hundred. What is the value, and why?
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
All the evidence is that they cannot. Hungary! Ireland (1% on defence), Spain, etcetcetc Oh we have fine words, but that's where it ends.
You're using Ireland and Spain, both of whom didn't flight in WW2, as examples of how European countries think about defense?
Although Hungary fought in WW2.
And it was on the side of the Nazis that time and all, including supporting an invasion of Ukraine 🤔
Looks at some more car design news (some others were previously covered so it's not every team), how testing went, the Monaco news, a summary of how I think things stand and how the odds have changed (which is already out of date, I almost got this released yesterday but just ran out of time).
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
All the evidence is that they cannot. Hungary! Ireland (1% on defence), Spain, etcetcetc Oh we have fine words, but that's where it ends.
You're using Ireland and Spain, both of whom didn't flight in WW2, as examples of how European countries think about defense?
How many are ready to move towards 2.5 or 3 per cent now?
Yesterday's events suddenly make more sense of what went before. Trump had let his mouth run away with him and he realised that Putin hadn't read the script. As the worzels one sang ... "Thee's Got'n Where Thee Cassn't Back'n, Hassn't?"
They needed a fall-guy and Zelenskyy was selected. Hence the chorus of insults from the Republicans - relying on the Septic's natural Isolationist mode. There's only one way to treat Trump - as the spoilt five-year old he is.
Yesterday's events suddenly make more sense of what went before. Trump had let his mouth run away with him and he realised that Putin hadn't read the script. As the worzels one sang ... "Thee's Got'n Where Thee Cassn't Back'n, Hassn't?"
They needed a fall-guy and Zelenskyy was selected. Hence the chorus of insults from the Republicans - relying on the Septic's natural Isolationist mode. There's only one way to treat Trump - as the spoilt five-year old he is.
I think that's a very unkind remark.
What have you got against spoilt five year olds that you compare them to Trump?
The UK can’t re-calibrate its defence overnight away from the USA.
It might make some people happy if Starmer told Trump where to go but this would be an ultimately disastrous move both for the UK , Europe and Ukraine .
Starmer needs to continue his juggling act for as long as possible and buy some time.
Yesterday at least confirmed to those still in denial that Trump is totally on the side of Putin .
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
All the evidence is that they cannot. Hungary! Ireland (1% on defence), Spain, etcetcetc Oh we have fine words, but that's where it ends.
It only needs co-operation between the EU's major powers to put together sufficient armed forces to defend the continent. The Spanish can provide the refreshments and the Irish the entertainment.
A depressing morning to wake up to. I think a day where the sensible move would be to switch off the internet, enjoy the sunshine and hope for the best.
Will that happen? Probably not. Probably end up doomscrolling and impotently expressing frustration and fear into the void.
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
All the evidence is that they cannot. Hungary! Ireland (1% on defence), Spain, etcetcetc Oh we have fine words, but that's where it ends.
You're using Ireland and Spain, both of whom didn't flight in WW2, as examples of how European countries think about defense?
Although Hungary fought in WW2.
And it was on the side of the Nazis that time and all, including supporting an invasion of Ukraine 🤔
Small countries that have been on the wrong side of history or are on the wrong side of aggression often work on the basis of enemy's enemy is their friend. Ditto Finland and many Ukranians during WWII.
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
All the evidence is that they cannot. Hungary! Ireland (1% on defence), Spain, etcetcetc Oh we have fine words, but that's where it ends.
You're using Ireland and Spain, both of whom didn't flight in WW2, as examples of how European countries think about defense?
How many are ready to move towards 2.5 or 3 per cent now?
I'm thinking you may be this week's Saturday visitor?
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
Trump and Vance are vile, evil, people. Scum, through and through.
I’d disagree
Trump is what he is. A vain, greedy, narcissistic bully who is only interested in himself.
Vance’s intervention was eyeopeninng. The conversation was not warm up to that point but it was functional. His jab came out of nowhere and was designed to create chaos. He’s the vile, evil one
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
All the evidence is that they cannot. Hungary! Ireland (1% on defence), Spain, etcetcetc Oh we have fine words, but that's where it ends.
You're using Ireland and Spain, both of whom didn't flight in WW2, as examples of how European countries think about defense?
How many are ready to move towards 2.5 or 3 per cent now?
I'm thinking you may be this week's Saturday visitor?
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
All the evidence is that they cannot. Hungary! Ireland (1% on defence), Spain, etcetcetc Oh we have fine words, but that's where it ends.
You're using Ireland and Spain, both of whom didn't flight in WW2, as examples of how European countries think about defense?
Although Hungary fought in WW2.
And it was on the side of the Nazis that time and all, including supporting an invasion of Ukraine 🤔
Horthy did want to switch sides in 1944, but the Nazis toppled him, occupied his country, and installed the fanatically fascist Arrow Cross in his place.
🚨The Trump administration is considering ending all ongoing shipments of military aid to Ukraine in response to Zelensky’s remarks in the Oval Office on Friday and his perceived intransigence in the peace process, per senior administration official
Now that IS much more serious. That truly is music to Moscow ears.
That is the most shocking take out from today. 😧
I’m going with the decision to stop funding repairs to Ukraines power networks effective immediately
That is in direct support of one of Putin’s war aims
The Economist on Musk/DOGE: Mr Musk’s supporters believe that, through tech wizardry and sheer willpower, he is slashing the federal deficit in a way that has eluded politicians for years. But this narrative has a glaring flaw: our review of official data shows that Mr Musk’s efforts have scarcely made a dent in spending.
Outflows from the Treasury have actually risen since January 28th, when Mr Musk first claimed his “Department of Government Efficiency”, or DOGE, was saving the federal government $1bn a day. Looking at the bigger picture, the government’s spending trajectory in the current fiscal year, which began in October, basically resembles that of the past two years.
Watching the entire hour of the press conference, it's abundantly clear that the inexperiencedly arrogant Vance destroyed the entire deal.
It can't be anything other than deliberate sabotage IMO. No-one treats other leaders that way, not even if they are from a hostile state, let alone a nominal ally.
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
All the evidence is that they cannot. Hungary! Ireland (1% on defence), Spain, etcetcetc Oh we have fine words, but that's where it ends.
You're using Ireland and Spain, both of whom didn't flight in WW2, as examples of how European countries think about defense?
How many are ready to move towards 2.5 or 3 per cent now?
I'm thinking you may be this week's Saturday visitor?
I don't think this is fair on a new poster. @scampi25 got this last time they posted too. You might not agree with their views, might even think them dangerous, but their posts definitely don't fit the Russian troll format, and anyway our mods would deal with that.
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
All the evidence is that they cannot. Hungary! Ireland (1% on defence), Spain, etcetcetc Oh we have fine words, but that's where it ends.
You're using Ireland and Spain, both of whom didn't flight in WW2, as examples of how European countries think about defense?
How many are ready to move towards 2.5 or 3 per cent now?
I'm thinking you may be this week's Saturday visitor?
I don't think this is fair on a new poster. @scampi25 got this last time they posted too. You might not agree with their views, might even think them dangerous, but their posts definitely don't fit the Russian troll format, and anyway our mods would deal with that.
OK, well let's wait. There'll doubtless be one along shortly.
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Some want a dramatic Hollywood moment. Unfortunately the credits will not roll and we will all have to deal with the consequences.
Cool heads, accept the old world is gone and we are not yet ready for the new world, buy time.
Expel the USA from the Five Eyes. Tulsi Gabbard will betray secret information to Russia.
I agree. Unfortunately I spent yesterday lunchtime with my beighbour who spent a decade or more in the RAF doing all manner of intelligence and C&C posts. He said that whilst it is a nice idea and may even become necessary, the US own much of the actual framework hardware for Five Eyes and the rest of the countries are not currently in a position to replicate that.
If only these various European countries could find some sort of formal way to start working together?
All the evidence is that they cannot. Hungary! Ireland (1% on defence), Spain, etcetcetc Oh we have fine words, but that's where it ends.
You're using Ireland and Spain, both of whom didn't flight in WW2, as examples of how European countries think about defense?
How many are ready to move towards 2.5 or 3 per cent now?
I'm thinking you may be this week's Saturday visitor?
I don't think this is fair on a new poster. @scampi25 got this last time they posted too. You might not agree with their views, might even think them dangerous, but their posts definitely don't fit the Russian troll format, and anyway our mods would deal with that.
OK, well let's wait. There'll doubtless be one along shortly.
Seems a bit superfluous sending them on here when they already have the President of the United States, the Vice President and the owner of the worlds main news feed getting the Putin message out there..
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Hearts are ruling over heads on here for many at the moment, understandably.
The answer 'what should Starmer do?' seems quite obvious, to me at least. Get our very best people to pull together a plan to (a) get our own military to sufficient strength and (b) build alliances that together will allow us to confidently assert the European view in this as soon as we possibly can.
Work from the date at which we can make that confident assertion - up to that point, do whatever is needed to deescalate. Beyond that point, utterly reject the moral and strategic idiocy from the white house and take no prisoners in our defence of western liberal values.
This is within our power. But it will need a lot of squeamishness in the meantime as we work with the reality that we remain, for the moment, America's poodle.
Watching the entire hour of the press conference, it's abundantly clear that the inexperiencedly arrogant Vance destroyed the entire deal.
It can't be anything other than deliberate sabotage IMO. No-one treats other leaders that way, not even if they from a hostile state, let alone a nominal ally.
I think it's clear that it was deliberate sabotage but it's not totally clear how wide the plan was. There must be a vast range of opinion within the administration and Trump tends to agree with the last person he spoke to so it could have been anything from a planned setup by Trump and Vance, to Vance trying to blow up whatever Rubio was trying to put together.
Ask Zelensky and Ukraine and see their response if you believe that nonsense
And do you support Starmer withdrawing the King's invitation to Trump?
The King should withdraw the invitation.
That would 100% be the wrong thing to do
It would inflame the situation.
It is something Trump wants. We can try to squeeze a little advantage out of it. And if it gets cancelled later then so be it
UK state visits have nothing to do with us liking the visitor or their moral standing. Have a look at the lists of past state visits. More likely wrong un than not, the good guys we can just negotiate with normally.
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
There is something in this. Trump is a narcissist who likes to be paid court, and this is how Starmer has made progress with him. Potentially humiliating Trump on public over whether there's any point in negotiating with Putin was a poor start.
However it was the inexperienced and arrogant Vance who really jettisoned the whole delicate balance, if you watch the whole video, and he also may have even more direct sympafhy for Putin than Trump.
Watching the entire hour of the press conference, it's abundantly clear that the inexperiencedly arrogant Vance destroyed the entire deal.
It can't be anything other than deliberate sabotage IMO. No-one treats other leaders that way, not even if they are from a hostile state, let alone a nominal ally.
Hitler treated Hacha that way when the one-balled one finally dismembered Czechoslovakia in early 1939.
I would rather he lowers the temperature than escalates for dramatic effect. We need to buy time.
We’re still all assuming Trump and his cabal are rational actors. They’re not. They need to get hardball treatment, as Canada has shown.
It took us 2 decades to realise that about Putin. Are we really going to make the same mistake again?
Sure, but there no sense in escalating now. The damage is done. We need to buy time.
No no no. Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions. Otherwise it’s appeasement.
“Trump needs to feel the downsides if his actions”
Okay. What measures are you suggesting?
Hearts are ruling over heads on here for many at the moment, understandably.
The answer 'what should Starmer do?' seems quite obvious, to me at least. Get our very best people to pull together a plan to (a) get our own military to sufficient strength and (b) build alliances that together will allow us to confidently assert the European view in this as soon as we possibly can.
Work from the date at which we can make that confident assertion - up to that point, do whatever is needed to deescalate. Beyond that point, utterly reject the moral and strategic idiocy from the white house and take no prisoners in our defence of western liberal values.
This is within our power. But it will need a lot of squeamishness in the meantime as we work with the reality that we remain, for the moment, America's poodle.
You and I agree on few things
But on this occasion you are right
I appreciate that - thanks.
It's one of the few things that give me heart this morning - anyone with any integrity, regardless of their political views, is on the same side for once (even if we might differ about how we get there).
Watching the entire hour of the press conference, it's abundantly clear that the inexperiencedly arrogant Vance destroyed the entire deal.
It can't be anything other than deliberate sabotage IMO. No-one treats other leaders that way, not even if they are from a hostile state, let alone a nominal ally.
Hitler treated Hacha that way when the one-balled one finally dismembered Czechoslovakia in early 1939.
Hardly a great precedent. But if Vance deliberately sabotaged the meeting, as seems to be the case, it means he's looking for a pretext to ditch Ukraine specifically and the entire Western alliance more generally.
"Zelenskyy has taken to X, formerly Twitter, to thank leaders who have posted their support on the social media platform.
They include the leaders of Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Moldova, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, Croatia, the European Parliament, the European Commission and European Council."
Can't help feeling there is something missing there.
"Zelenskyy has taken to X, formerly Twitter, to thank leaders who have posted their support on the social media platform.
They include the leaders of Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Moldova, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, Croatia, the European Parliament, the European Commission and European Council."
Can't help feeling there is something missing there.
The Economist on Musk/DOGE: Mr Musk’s supporters believe that, through tech wizardry and sheer willpower, he is slashing the federal deficit in a way that has eluded politicians for years. But this narrative has a glaring flaw: our review of official data shows that Mr Musk’s efforts have scarcely made a dent in spending.
Outflows from the Treasury have actually risen since January 28th, when Mr Musk first claimed his “Department of Government Efficiency”, or DOGE, was saving the federal government $1bn a day. Looking at the bigger picture, the government’s spending trajectory in the current fiscal year, which began in October, basically resembles that of the past two years.
If he really wants to slash the d federal deficit why was the Bampot suggesting sending everyone a $5000 check !
Trumps behaviour towards Zelezny is nothing short of a disgrace.. and we have to have the idiot in the UK. Everyone should tell Trump to fuck off and then see what he does when he has noone to bully.
Watching the entire hour of the press conference, it's abundantly clear that the inexperiencedly arrogant Vance destroyed the entire deal.
It can't be anything other than deliberate sabotage IMO. No-one treats other leaders that way, not even if they from a hostile state, let alone a nominal ally.
I think it's clear that it was deliberate sabotage but it's not totally clear how wide the plan was. There must be a vast range of opinion within the administration and Trump tends to agree with the last person he spoke to so it could have been anything from a planned setup by Trump and Vance, to Vance trying to blow up whatever Rubio was trying to put together.
Not the least weird thing about the event was Rubio squirming there like a marionette from Team America. Trump et al seem to be fuelled by semi-organised chaos, tactics of one day replaced by another set if the first lot doesn’t work. Might work in real estate deal making (though the evidence in Trump’s case is mixed), but geopoliticking..
Secretary Rubio says he believes President Zelensky should apologize after the "fiasco" in the Oval Office.
Rubio when asked by @kaitlancollins if he believes Zelenskyy wants the war to end: "I'm not sure after today."
“President Trump has made deals his entire life. He’s not going to get suckered into a deal that’s not a real deal,” Secretary Rubio says after Zelenksy argued that Putin can't be trusted in negotiations.
Watching the entire hour of the press conference, it's abundantly clear that the inexperiencedly arrogant Vance destroyed the entire deal.
It can't be anything other than deliberate sabotage IMO. No-one treats other leaders that way, not even if they from a hostile state, let alone a nominal ally.
I think it's clear that it was deliberate sabotage but it's not totally clear how wide the plan was. There must be a vast range of opinion within the administration and Trump tends to agree with the last person he spoke to so it could have been anything from a planned setup by Trump and Vance, to Vance trying to blow up whatever Rubio was trying to put together.
I am not sure if Trump was in on the plan. Vance would have known how Trump would react and planned accordingly. Unfortunately whether Trump was originally in on the plan or not, he is now. Vance's gambit worked in that case.
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
There is something in this. Trump is a narcissist who likes to be paid court, and this is how Starmer has made progress with him. Potentially humiliating Trump on public over whether there's any point in negotiating with Putin was a poor start.
However it was the inexperienced and arrogant Vance who really jettisoned the whole delicate balance, if you watch the whole video, and he also may have even more direct sympafhy for Putin than Trump.
I shall watch the whole video.
I did see Zelenskyy showing Trump the pictures and Trump seemed moved by them.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
This analysis neglects some domestic Ukrainian politics. Z has made his bed with the Azovs, Right Sektor and other assorted maniacs. If he didn't push back to the absolute maximum and slag Russia on the biggest stage he's ever worked before signing any deal then there is a decent chance he'd be killed when he got back. As was possible with psychos like DJT and JDV, he pushed a bit too hard.
Still, he's part of the problem now, not part of the solution and might have to be coup'ed out of the way for the SMO to end.
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
Watching the entire hour of the press conference, it's abundantly clear that the inexperiencedly arrogant Vance destroyed the entire deal.
It can't be anything other than deliberate sabotage IMO. No-one treats other leaders that way, not even if they are from a hostile state, let alone a nominal ally.
Hitler treated Hacha that way when the one-balled one finally dismembered Czechoslovakia in early 1939.
Hardly a great precedent. But if Vance deliberately sabotaged the meeting, as seems to be the case, it means he's looking for a pretext to ditch Ukraine specifically and the entire Western alliance more generally.
Trump started the journey yesterday in the Oval Office as a passenger. He was triggered by the planted question of Zelensky disrespecting Trump by not wearing a suit. Vance seemed to be controlling the narrative and pushed Trump's buttons. I suspect the whole fiasco was orchestrated but not by Trump.
It was interesting that Vance poked Macron and Starmer in a couple of dry runs prior to the main event.
Friday probably isn't a good day for a meeting with Trump. His addled brain is already on the golf course.
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
Several posters refer to an intervention by Vance that precipitated the row. Was it to do with Zelensky's apparel in the White House or something else?
Secretary Rubio says he believes President Zelensky should apologize after the "fiasco" in the Oval Office.
Rubio when asked by @kaitlancollins if he believes Zelenskyy wants the war to end: "I'm not sure after today."
“President Trump has made deals his entire life. He’s not going to get suckered into a deal that’s not a real deal,” Secretary Rubio says after Zelenksy argued that Putin can't be trusted in negotiations.
Watching the entire hour of the press conference, it's abundantly clear that the inexperiencedly arrogant Vance destroyed the entire deal.
It can't be anything other than deliberate sabotage IMO. No-one treats other leaders that way, not even if they are from a hostile state, let alone a nominal ally.
You make a good point. This was billed to be a celebration, a ceremonial signing of a deal. That’s not what happened. Either Vance was following orders or is in deep shit today.
Secretary Rubio says he believes President Zelensky should apologize after the "fiasco" in the Oval Office.
Rubio when asked by @kaitlancollins if he believes Zelenskyy wants the war to end: "I'm not sure after today."
“President Trump has made deals his entire life. He’s not going to get suckered into a deal that’s not a real deal,” Secretary Rubio says after Zelenksy argued that Putin can't be trusted in negotiations.
"Zelenskyy has taken to X, formerly Twitter, to thank leaders who have posted their support on the social media platform.
They include the leaders of Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Moldova, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, Croatia, the European Parliament, the European Commission and European Council."
Can't help feeling there is something missing there.
It's been done; do keep up
You think? What I have seen is a statement that still tries to have its cake and eat it. Spoken to both and continue to support Ukraine. No comment whatsoever on Trump and Vance's disgraceful behaviour.
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
Typical PB. Avoid what’s written and just dissemble and distract. Waste of time.
Bastani, like Ash Sarwar has been on a journey and his contemporary views don’t resemble his views from a few years back.
Why would the Ukrainian President want to highlight that Putin is untrustworthy and they need security guarantees? You really need us to address this point?
"Zelenskyy has taken to X, formerly Twitter, to thank leaders who have posted their support on the social media platform.
They include the leaders of Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Moldova, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, Croatia, the European Parliament, the European Commission and European Council."
Can't help feeling there is something missing there.
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
A white supremacist grifter is obviously going to pivot with his leader but needs to explain his previous support for Zelenskyy, hence these words that don't reflect what actually happened
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
Several posters refer to an intervention by Vance that precipitated the row. Was it to do with Zelensky's apparel in the White House or something else?
Vance said Zelensky wasn't showing proper gratitude and that Trump was taking the right approach in talking to Russia because Ukraine was about to lose.
There was a lot more of it, but that was the gist.
The latter point is arguable, but since Zelensky had literally just said 'thank you' to Trump about five minutes before Vance said he hadn't the first clearly wasn't true.
So Vance is either as dumb as as a Dom Cummings eye test, or there was something else going on.
"Zelenskyy has taken to X, formerly Twitter, to thank leaders who have posted their support on the social media platform.
They include the leaders of Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Moldova, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, Croatia, the European Parliament, the European Commission and European Council."
Can't help feeling there is something missing there.
It's been done; do keep up
You think? What I have seen is a statement that still tries to have its cake and eat it. Spoken to both and continue to support Ukraine. No comment whatsoever on Trump and Vance's disgraceful behaviour.
I suspect Macron and Starmer have agreed different roles and tactics for each to "manage" Europes relationship with the US as best they can.
"Zelenskyy has taken to X, formerly Twitter, to thank leaders who have posted their support on the social media platform.
They include the leaders of Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Moldova, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, Croatia, the European Parliament, the European Commission and European Council."
Can't help feeling there is something missing there.
"Zelenskyy has taken to X, formerly Twitter, to thank leaders who have posted their support on the social media platform.
They include the leaders of Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Moldova, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, Croatia, the European Parliament, the European Commission and European Council."
Can't help feeling there is something missing there.
That to me feels intentional and we are missing at our request
Interesting summary here. This seems to be a take across left and right. Konstantin Kisin to Aaron Bastani have similar.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
Fuckin' hell Taz. I hope you have posted this to demonstrate what a fuckin' melon Bastani is.
Zelensky was gaslit by the Trump administration. He was ambushed and then we have useful idiots equalising the blame or putting it firmly on Zelensky 's shoulders. One should expect that from a twunt like Bastani, but BBC USA Editor Sarah Smith (daughter of perhaps the greatest modern Labour Prime Minister that never was) should be sacked for her myopic analysis that Zelensky was the aggressor.
Several posters refer to an intervention by Vance that precipitated the row. Was it to do with Zelensky's apparel in the White House or something else?
It was obviously a planted question designed to trigger a vain old diaper wearing fool.
Several posters refer to an intervention by Vance that precipitated the row. Was it to do with Zelensky's apparel in the White House or something else?
Vance said Zelensky wasn't showing proper gratitude and that Trump was taking the right approach in talking to Russia because Ukraine was about to lose.
There was a lot more of it, but that was the gist.
The latter point is arguable, but since Zelensky had literally just said 'thank you' to Trump about five minutes before Vance said he hadn't the first clearly wasn't true.
So Vance is either as dumb as as a Dom Cummings eye test, or there was something else going on.
Why would Zelenskyy thank Trump?
Trump admin #1 (2017-2021) did NOTHING to "persuade" Putin to give up Crimea and the Donbass, which he had occupied since 2014
The fiasco yesterday shows just how badly Starmer's visit could have gone. Not getting riled by Vance and employing the King's letter, Churchill's bust to full nauseating effect was indeed a triumph. He is now the only person with a scintilla of leverage over Trump.
Hindsight is everything. Starmer's team now need to adjust and make Sunday a success too.
What really seemed to upset Vance and Trump was Zelensky campaigning in Pennsylvania for the Democrats and that wasn't, in fairness, the smartest move. Thank goodness none of our parties were stupid enough to send supporters to campaign for Harris.
"Zelenskyy has taken to X, formerly Twitter, to thank leaders who have posted their support on the social media platform.
They include the leaders of Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Moldova, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, Croatia, the European Parliament, the European Commission and European Council."
Can't help feeling there is something missing there.
That to me feels intentional and we are missing at our request
It's hard to know exactly what an appropriate response to this is in relation to the USA, but I do know one thing: the meeting of European leaders this Sunday could not have had a clearer impetus.
If they collectively bottle taking decisive measures to allow Europe to stand alone in defence within 3-5 years, including defending Ukraine to the extent that we are capable of doing so, starting Monday, every single one of them deserves to be thrown out of office.
If things weren't clear before, they surely are now.
Unfortunately Germany won't be in a position to promise increased defence spending because that utter shit Merz refused to talk about reforming the debt brake on any of the dozen times the outgoing government asked him to consider it over the last year or more.
Whether something can be done before the new parliament (that has a 1 third blocking minority AfD plus die Linke) convenes isn't certain. Today die Linke threatened to go to the constitutional court if an attempt is made using the old parliament.
But you know there are historical reasons Germany is reticent to get involved in war in Ukraine. Why don’t you just be honest and explain to us that you understand that, rather than hide behind those reasons in your criticism of Merz?
Huh? Should I bother answering this? I'll just say your reply to me doesn't address anything I wrote in any way whatsoever and leave it at that.
UK journalism often refers to this German reticence - should we ignore it when UK journalists do this? Or is it a real thing, the sound of German language in Ukraine winds up Pro Russia Ukrainians or something? It’s not all about 2nd WW? is it first WW or prior to that?
What's it got to do with the German constitutional debt brake?
You seem reticent to explain there is or isn’t this reticence thing to us - why?
I was talking about the debt brake - which is why I ask you what your comments have to do with the debt brake?
But on the issue of sensitivity in Germany around German military involvement in Ukraine (and elsewhere) for historical reasons, I'm sure you can figure it out. I'll give you one hint - @JosiasJessop is an idiot.
Okay, so you disagree.
So let me ask a question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last? A hundred years? Two hundred years? The Baltics? Poland? The Rhine?
You literally couldn't see any difference between things that happened 80 years ago and things that happened 200 years ago!
Of course i can see the difference.
So please answer my question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction?
Evidently, in your mind it is greater than eighty years and less than two hundred. I'm just interested in your view on this, and your reasoning.
But I also think that the 'sensitivities' stuff is just rubbish after eighty years. An excuse for inaction, playing into Russia's hands.
Personally, I think the West should have either from the start given Ukraine whatever support it needed to defeat Russia, or not bothered. I blame Biden for his caution and Germany has consistently followed the American lead, at least up until Trump came back.
If you look at the last decades Germany has been reluctant to get involved in any foreign military adventures. The first combat mission was Kosovo 1999, and since that Afghanistan - though that was intended as a rebuilding mission. The US (and Britain and France for that matter) have been far more gung-ho in terms of foreign military adventures, and are nuclear powers as well. Expecting Germany to lead any military operations is a bit unrealistic.
If it turns out that Biden was all for NATO planes bombing the shit out of the Russian columns when they first advanced in 2022, and was only dissuaded by the German government I'll revise my opinion.
But also you seem to have some weird obsession with Germany, when other European allies, especially France and Italy, have provided a fraction of the support. Indeed you weirdly praise France in the same breath as condemning Germany.
I was going to give your comment a 'like', then read your final paragraph.
There are different sorts of 'support': humanitarian, military, financial, pledged, delivered, etc, etc.
France (and the UK...) have given missiles that allow Ukraine to strike very long distances. These are exceptionally useful to Ukraine. Germany refuses to give their very useful missiles. Surely you can see that's a discredit to Germany? Ditto the disgraceful delay in allowing Leopards to go over.
Germany's done many good things for Ukraine. But don't pretend they've been perfect. (*)
Also, as we are seeing in the USA, talk matters. Johnson, Sunak, and now Starmer have all been very clear in their support for Ukraine. As has Macron in France. Germany under Scholz seemed rather more equivocal. And yes, they followed the USA like a little poodle. Perhaps some leadership, and saying "These are our values, and Russia is against them!" might have been better than: "We'll just follow the USA."
But you still have not answered my question...
(*) Neither have we; but we shamefully had less to give.
But your question was a different one to the one asked. Do the events of 80 years ago still affect German foreign policy? My answer is yes. Should they? Well it depends.
(Snip)
My question was quite clear, and *not* the answer you give above.
You name-checked me and called me an 'idiot'. Fair enough. But you cannot even answer (as far as I can see) the simple question I posed. Here it is again: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last?
Evidently eighty years. But not two hundred. What is the value, and why?
But for me to answer your question you need to give me a specific example of "Germany using the sins of 80 years ago as an excuse for inaction" then I can say if I think it was right or wrong.
Clearly German history from the 30s and 40s does affect current German foreign policy - look at the unqualified support Germany gives Israel. In this case I think it's wrong.
And I'm not going to defend Scholz because he's been rubbish. But at the end of the day the only thing he'll be remembered for is his Zeitenwende speech on the 27th February 2022,which signalled a complete turnaround in German foreign policy.
Comments
So let me ask a question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last? A hundred years? Two hundred years? The Baltics? Poland? The Rhine?
So please answer my question: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction?
Evidently, in your mind it is greater than eighty years and less than two hundred. I'm just interested in your view on this, and your reasoning.
But I also think that the 'sensitivities' stuff is just rubbish after eighty years. An excuse for inaction, playing into Russia's hands.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/02/least-now-we-know-truth-about-trump-and-vance/681872/
Well, I slept like absolute shit. Glad I recorded all the stuff I needed yesterday (just barely ran out of time almost got podcast released). Will be up sometime this morning probably.
One of the few upsides of Trump's inconsistency and volatility is that Zelensky isn't wrong about the spat being bad, but perhaps recoverable.
I've never been a place where the populace are so neurotic about passers by.
If you look at the last decades Germany has been reluctant to get involved in any foreign military adventures. The first combat mission was Kosovo 1999, and since that Afghanistan - though that was intended as a rebuilding mission. The US (and Britain and France for that matter) have been far more gung-ho in terms of foreign military adventures, and are nuclear powers as well. Expecting Germany to lead any military operations is a bit unrealistic.
If it turns out that Biden was all for NATO planes bombing the shit out of the Russian columns when they first advanced in 2022, and was only dissuaded by the German government I'll revise my opinion.
But also you seem to have some weird obsession with Germany, when other European allies, especially France and Italy, have provided a fraction of the support. Indeed you weirdly praise France in the same breath as condemning Germany.
Piastri's 13 on Ladbrokes, and you can back him each way fifth the odds to be top 3 (title betting). Boosted, that's 14.
He can be laid on Betfair at 12.5*. If he finished 2nd or 3rd it'd pay out for both. Not a huge margin, but guaranteed to be ahead.
Edited: *12, actually.
Our history has been lucky in that the US has always - if sometimes after a bit of thinking time - concluded that it is better off with a prosperous and democratic Europe, rather than the rubble-strewn wasteland that we Europeans keep trying to turn it into. The alternative history where the US pulls up its drawbridge is the bullet we’ve always dodged - until now.
there are potential Reform switchers who find Farage's cuddling up to Trump and weasel words about Trump off-putting.
It's a point of vulnerability that all three of the other main parties will exploit.
These are people who go on entire extended world trips wearing their gym kit.
“All right, I think we’ve seen enough. What do you think? This is going to be great television. I will say that.”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-zelenskyy-vance-transcript-oval-office-80685f5727628c64065da81525f8f0cf
From AP - natch...
There are different sorts of 'support': humanitarian, military, financial, pledged, delivered, etc, etc.
France (and the UK...) have given missiles that allow Ukraine to strike very long distances. These are exceptionally useful to Ukraine. Germany refuses to give their very useful missiles. Surely you can see that's a discredit to Germany? Ditto the disgraceful delay in allowing Leopards to go over.
Germany's done many good things for Ukraine. But don't pretend they've been perfect. (*)
Also, as we are seeing in the USA, talk matters. Johnson, Sunak, and now Starmer have all been very clear in their support for Ukraine. As has Macron in France. Germany under Scholz seemed rather more equivocal. And yes, they followed the USA like a little poodle. Perhaps some leadership, and saying "These are our values, and Russia is against them!" might have been better than: "We'll just follow the USA."
But you still have not answered my question...
(*) Neither have we; but we shamefully had less to give.
But your "it's just an excuse" - what exactly are you referring to?
You mention tanks. Can you point me to the bit where Germany said no to Leopard tanks (for 2 weeks btw) "because of what we did in the second world war"?
Germany said, in effect, that it wouldn't supply tanks unless the US also promised to. I remember pointing this out to you at the time and you were also then very insistent that this was just "an excuse" and that even if the US promised tanks Germany still wouldn't. In fact Germany and the US promised tanks on the same day.
I don't think the 'sensitivity' is necessarily sensible. Some of it is an excuse not to do the right thing, and some of it simply pro-Russian propaganda.
You name-checked me and called me an 'idiot'. Fair enough. But you cannot even answer (as far as I can see) the simple question I posed. Here it is again: how long should Germany use their sins of eighty years ago as an excuse for inaction? How long will those 'sensitivities' last?
Evidently eighty years. But not two hundred. What is the value, and why?
And it was on the side of the Nazis that time and all, including supporting an invasion of Ukraine 🤔
https://x.com/popbase/status/1895623489643753558?s=61
It would inflame the situation.
It is something Trump wants. We can try to squeeze a little advantage out of it. And if it gets cancelled later then so be it
Reporter 2: “J D Vance”
https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/f1-testing-2025/
Looks at some more car design news (some others were previously covered so it's not every team), how testing went, the Monaco news, a summary of how I think things stand and how the odds have changed (which is already out of date, I almost got this released yesterday but just ran out of time).
https://x.com/merovaeous/status/1895118532028870742?s=61
They needed a fall-guy and Zelenskyy was selected. Hence the chorus of insults from the Republicans - relying on the Septic's natural Isolationist mode. There's only one way to treat Trump - as the spoilt five-year old he is.
What have you got against spoilt five year olds that you compare them to Trump?
It might make some people happy if Starmer told Trump where to go but this would be an ultimately disastrous move both for the UK , Europe and Ukraine .
Starmer needs to continue his juggling act for as long as possible and buy some time.
Yesterday at least confirmed to those still in denial that Trump is totally on the side of Putin .
Will that happen? Probably not. Probably end up doomscrolling and impotently expressing frustration and fear into the void.
I only saw a little bit after reading a few comments here as I was watching an old episode of New Tricks. A far more worthwhile endeavour, I may try to catch it later.
Zelenskyy went there and was going to get a deal but didn’t.
https://x.com/richardhanania/status/1895562922593841557?s=61
‘I watched the entire press conference with Zelensky. There was 40 minutes of discussion up to the argument. Most people saw at most the last ten minutes. The whole video gives the proper context.
When I first watched the argument without the proper context, I thought it was possible that Trump and Vance ambushed Zelensky or were even trying to humiliate him. That's not what happened.
You had 40 minutes of calm conversation. Vance made a point that didn't attack Zelensky and wasn't even addressed to him, and Zelensky clearly started the argument.
In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war. When Trump said that it was a tragedy that people on both sides were dying, Zelensky interjected that the Russians were the invaders.
For his part, Trump made clear that the US would continue delivering military aid. All Zelensky had to do was remain calm for a few more minutes and they would've signed a deal.
The argument started when Trump pointed out that it would be hard to make a deal if you talk about Putin the way Zelensky does. Vance interjects to make the reasonable point that Biden called Putin names and that didn't get us anywhere.
The Zelensky/Trump dynamic was calm and stable. It was when Vance spoke that Zelensky started to interrogate him. Throughout the press conference to that point, everyone was making their arguments directly to the audience. Zelensky decided to challenge Vance and ask him hostile questions. He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this? Then came the fight we all saw.
Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
I've been a fan of Zelensky up to this point, but this showed so much incompetence, if not emotional instability, that I don't see how he recovers from this. The relationship with the administration is broken. Ukraine should probably go with new leadership at this point.’
Trump is what he is. A vain, greedy, narcissistic bully who is only interested in himself.
Vance’s intervention was eyeopeninng. The conversation was not warm up to that point but it was functional. His jab came out of nowhere and was designed to create chaos. He’s the vile, evil one
Watching the entire hour of the press conference, it's abundantly clear that the inexperiencedly arrogant Vance destroyed the entire deal.
That is in direct support of one of Putin’s war aims
Outflows from the Treasury have actually risen since January 28th, when Mr Musk first claimed his “Department of Government Efficiency”, or DOGE, was saving the federal government $1bn a day. Looking at the bigger picture, the government’s spending trajectory in the current fiscal year, which began in October, basically resembles that of the past two years.
You might not agree with their views, might even think them dangerous, but their posts definitely don't fit the Russian troll format, and anyway our mods would deal with that.
Or that Trump's smashing of European security and trade networks is a good thing as it could break up NATO and lead to a rapprochement with Russia?
That Aaron Bastani?
But on this occasion you are right
However it was the inexperienced and arrogant Vance who really jettisoned the whole delicate balance, if you watch the whole video, and he also may have even more direct sympafhy for Putin than Trump.
It's one of the few things that give me heart this morning - anyone with any integrity, regardless of their political views, is on the same side for once (even if we might differ about how we get there).
“The Blair aides who masterminded Starmer’s Trump triumph
Fingerprints of Jonathan Powell and Lord Mandelson all over two clearest successes of Sir Keir Starmer’s Washington visit”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/03/01/blair-aides-masterminded-starmer-trump-triumph/
Utterly insane. Weirdly so
"Zelenskyy has taken to X, formerly Twitter, to thank leaders who have posted their support on the social media platform.
They include the leaders of Germany, Spain, France, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Moldova, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Czech Republic, Finland, Portugal, Croatia, the European Parliament, the European Commission and European Council."
Can't help feeling there is something missing there.
Trump et al seem to be fuelled by semi-organised chaos, tactics of one day replaced by another set if the first lot doesn’t work. Might work in real estate deal making (though the evidence in Trump’s case is mixed), but geopoliticking..
@kaitlancollins
Secretary Rubio says he believes President Zelensky should apologize after the "fiasco" in the Oval Office.
Rubio when asked by @kaitlancollins if he believes Zelenskyy wants the war to end: "I'm not sure after today."
“President Trump has made deals his entire life. He’s not going to get suckered into a deal that’s not a real deal,” Secretary Rubio says after Zelenksy argued that Putin can't be trusted in negotiations.
Typical PB. Avoid what’s written and just dissemble and distract. Waste of time.
Bastani, like Ash Sarwar has been on a journey and his contemporary views don’t resemble his views from a few years back.
I did see Zelenskyy showing Trump the pictures and Trump seemed moved by them.
Still, he's part of the problem now, not part of the solution and might have to be coup'ed out of the way for the SMO to end.
It was interesting that Vance poked Macron and Starmer in a couple of dry runs prior to the main event.
Friday probably isn't a good day for a meeting with Trump. His addled brain is already on the golf course.
There was a lot more of it, but that was the gist.
The latter point is arguable, but since Zelensky had literally just said 'thank you' to Trump about five minutes before Vance said he hadn't the first clearly wasn't true.
So Vance is either as dumb as as a Dom Cummings eye test, or there was something else going on.
Zelensky was gaslit by the Trump administration. He was ambushed and then we have useful idiots equalising the blame or putting it firmly on Zelensky 's shoulders. One should expect that from a twunt like Bastani, but BBC USA Editor Sarah Smith (daughter of perhaps the greatest modern Labour Prime Minister that never was) should be sacked for her myopic analysis that Zelensky was the aggressor.
Trump admin #1 (2017-2021) did NOTHING to "persuade" Putin to give up Crimea and the Donbass, which he had occupied since 2014
Hindsight is everything. Starmer's team now need to adjust and make Sunday a success too.
Clearly German history from the 30s and 40s does affect current German foreign policy - look at the unqualified support Germany gives Israel. In this case I think it's wrong.
And I'm not going to defend Scholz because he's been rubbish. But at the end of the day the only thing he'll be remembered for is his Zeitenwende speech on the 27th February 2022,which signalled a complete turnaround in German foreign policy.