After yesterday’s disgraceful scenes, Trump will still wants to be the peacemaker, and that starts with a ceasefire.
On one hand, he presumably thinks he has given so much to Putin that he can wangle a ceasefire from Russia. On the other, he wants those “raw earth” minerals from Ukraine which presumably involves US “operatives”, but not military personnel, on the ground in Ukraine.
Zelensky in turn wants tougher security guaranteed.
Seems like the only guarantee Trump is potentially offering is some kind of air cover “backstop” for European troops. Starmer and Macron are not willing to post troops without that backstop.
Remember folks, this is just to get to a ceasefire. But the existence of US economic operatives, UK/JEF/French troops, and American air cover, perhaps answers the outstanding security question, since NATO was never viably on the table.
That would then just leave the actual borders, and prisoner exchange. Publicly at least, Putin is still sticking to his maximalist position.
Hopefully yesterday’s contretemps, as awful as it looked. is just a bend in the road.
"To the extent you feel you can define it, what’s the Trump doctrine?
Part of the problem with Trump is that he is so mercurial. He’s so idiosyncratic that, just when you think you figured out the Trump doctrine, he goes and says something that kind of sounds like the opposite of the Trump doctrine. But I do think that there is one coherent worldview that Trump seems to espouse and has espoused for a long time. The first ad he took out when he was a real estate developer was in 1987. It was an ad about how Japan was ripping us off economically and Europe was ripping us off by free-riding on security. And what that represents, fundamentally, is a rejection of the open international system that the United States and Europe have built over the last eight decades."
Trump’s first visit to Russia was in 1987.
I know it’s considered paranoiac to claim that Trump is a Russian operative but he certainly behaves like it much of the time.
Who thinks that the Russian's might have tried a honey trap with this young businessman? I guess he'd have made an excuse and left.
Imagine a Federal Europe with a huge military under central command and control. Game changer.
It would be a disaster, we would have a single point of failure just like we do in America. Imagine that military being controlled by a European Trump, Orban or Schroder.
Why would you possibly want that?
Far better to imagine a coalition of European nations that actually spend a decent amount on their militaries each, who can work together.
More - a variety of coalitions for different purposes. The key point being that everyone in each is 100% committed to the aims of that specific alliance.
"To the extent you feel you can define it, what’s the Trump doctrine?
Part of the problem with Trump is that he is so mercurial. He’s so idiosyncratic that, just when you think you figured out the Trump doctrine, he goes and says something that kind of sounds like the opposite of the Trump doctrine. But I do think that there is one coherent worldview that Trump seems to espouse and has espoused for a long time. The first ad he took out when he was a real estate developer was in 1987. It was an ad about how Japan was ripping us off economically and Europe was ripping us off by free-riding on security. And what that represents, fundamentally, is a rejection of the open international system that the United States and Europe have built over the last eight decades."
Trump’s first visit to Russia was in 1987.
I know it’s considered paranoiac to claim that Trump is a Russian operative but he certainly behaves like it much of the time.
Robert Harris wrote ‘The Ghost’, loosely modelled on the Blair’s, with the idea that the PMs wife was an agent of a foreign power and had been from the start. But that’s fiction. Does anyone seriously believe that Trump is a Russian agent? The more prosaic explanation is that he is a massive arse who wants the put USA first. Unpalatable as it is to us in Europe there is an element of truth to the idea that Western Europe has had an easy ride with the US playing role of global peacekeeper. Countries like Ireland, for instance, absolutely take the piss assured that Britain will defend them, and many Americans will say the same about Europe. Isolationism in the US isn’t a new thing, after all.
Does anyone seriously believe that Trump is a Russian agent? Google Agent Krasnov and let us know.
It’s time the media stopped calling the stain on humanity the leader of the free world .
Only today people are being fired from Voice of America because they’re not showing enough cowering to Trump .
This is how it all starts, the media become more and more frightened of repercussions and start sanewashing what’s happening .
The only free speech the far right like is one they agree with .
The media have been sane washing him a fair bit all the way through the campaign to be honest. He was treated as just another GOP candidate for POTUS and not the threat he literally told them he was.
The King should take him to Churchill’s tailors*. And there pay for a siren suit as worn by WSC.
*Turnbull & Asser
- Look, no offence, but in this world, where someone is claiming to be a billionaire, Brooks Brothers won't cut it. - I'm assuming I'm on a budget. - Save the world, then we'll balance the books. Can I recommend a tailor? - I'll manage. You British don't have a monopoly on snobbery, you know. - Well, not a monopoly. More of a controlling interest!
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Nothing helps dealing with Trump because he’s a dick and is only interested in what’s best for him but pissing him off will definitely not help.
Ultimately his vanity is key but he’s surrounded by nutters who won’t tell him he isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize by treating Ukraine like this and Russia like that. Maybe a “leaked” internal memo from the Nobel committee deploring his position might help.
"To the extent you feel you can define it, what’s the Trump doctrine?
Part of the problem with Trump is that he is so mercurial. He’s so idiosyncratic that, just when you think you figured out the Trump doctrine, he goes and says something that kind of sounds like the opposite of the Trump doctrine. But I do think that there is one coherent worldview that Trump seems to espouse and has espoused for a long time. The first ad he took out when he was a real estate developer was in 1987. It was an ad about how Japan was ripping us off economically and Europe was ripping us off by free-riding on security. And what that represents, fundamentally, is a rejection of the open international system that the United States and Europe have built over the last eight decades."
Trump’s first visit to Russia was in 1987.
I know it’s considered paranoiac to claim that Trump is a Russian operative but he certainly behaves like it much of the time.
Robert Harris wrote ‘The Ghost’, loosely modelled on the Blair’s, with the idea that the PMs wife was an agent of a foreign power and had been from the start. But that’s fiction. Does anyone seriously believe that Trump is a Russian agent? The more prosaic explanation is that he is a massive arse who wants the put USA first. Unpalatable as it is to us in Europe there is an element of truth to the idea that Western Europe has had an easy ride with the US playing role of global peacekeeper. Countries like Ireland, for instance, absolutely take the piss assured that Britain will defend them, and many Americans will say the same about Europe. Isolationism in the US isn’t a new thing, after all.
Does anyone seriously believe that Trump is a Russian agent? Google Agent Krasnov and let us know.
Us plebs will never know if he is a Russian agent or not. Ignoring the possibility seems quite over confident though.
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Nothing helps dealing with Trump because he’s a dick and is only interested in what’s best for him but pissing him off will definitely not help.
Ultimately his vanity is key but he’s surrounded by nutters who won’t tell him he isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize by treating Ukraine like this and Russia like that. Maybe a “leaked” internal memo from the Nobel committee deploring his position might help.
If the US doesn't confirm that they stand by article 5 we should kick them out of NATO. Let's face it, NATO was only a buffer to protect USA's arse during the Cold war. I wonder if whether the chips had come down they would have piled in anyway.
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
I think that would be an extremely risky idea.
The last thing we need is an escalation of the conflict to bring in other powers and the idea of British and Polish troops shooting at Russians and where that could end isn't pleasant to contemplate.
As to whether NATO is "over", Trump has said he would stick to the obligations of Article 5 and as long as a scintilla of doubt remains, and, given his own parlous state, Putin won't get involved with NATO directly.
I do agree, absent American assistance, the rest of Europe has to provide as much materiel and logistical support to Kyiv as we can to enable the Ukrainians to not only hold the line but start pushing the Russians back - everything short of joining the fight with our own armed forces.
Imagine a Federal Europe with a huge military under central command and control. Game changer.
It would be a disaster, we would have a single point of failure just like we do in America. Imagine that military being controlled by a European Trump, Orban or Schroder.
Why would you possibly want that?
Far better to imagine a coalition of European nations that actually spend a decent amount on their militaries each, who can work together.
More - a variety of coalitions for different purposes. The key point being that everyone in each is 100% committed to the aims of that specific alliance.
Yep. I am all for working closely with like minded countries. I certainly have no objection, for example, for British troops to be under French or Norwegian or Polish command if that is the best way for things to be organised for a specific campaign or operation.
But what we are learning is that static, long term organisations will eventually fail and that we, as indvidual nations, cannot rely on anyone else to come and pull us out of the fire. We must do that ourselves, yes together, but as equals and realising that we will, at times have fundemental differences of opinion and outlook which means our shared arrangements have to be completely flexible.
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Nothing helps dealing with Trump because he’s a dick and is only interested in what’s best for him but pissing him off will definitely not help.
Ultimately his vanity is key but he’s surrounded by nutters who won’t tell him he isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize by treating Ukraine like this and Russia like that. Maybe a “leaked” internal memo from the Nobel committee deploring his position might help.
If the US doesn't confirm that they stand by article 5 we should kick them out of NATO. Let's face it, NATO was only a buffer to protect USA's arse during the Cold war. I wonder if whether the chips had come down they would have piled in anyway.
Even if they commit to Article 5 I wouldn’t believe it .
Imagine a Federal Europe with a huge military under central command and control. Game changer.
It would be a disaster, we would have a single point of failure just like we do in America. Imagine that military being controlled by a European Trump, Orban or Schroder.
Why would you possibly want that?
Far better to imagine a coalition of European nations that actually spend a decent amount on their militaries each, who can work together.
More - a variety of coalitions for different purposes. The key point being that everyone in each is 100% committed to the aims of that specific alliance.
Yep. I am all for working closely with like minded countries. I certainly have no objection, for example, for British troops to be under French or Norwegian or Polish command if that is the best way for things to be organised for a specific campaign or operation.
But what we are learning is that static, long term organisations will eventually fail and that we, as indvidual nations, cannot rely on anyone else to come and pull us out of the fire. We must do that ourselves, yes together, but as equals and realising that we will, at times have fundemental differences of opinion and outlook which means our shared arrangements have to be completely flexible.
Standing a bit like a stockpile beans and ammo kind of guy there, Richard.
"To the extent you feel you can define it, what’s the Trump doctrine?
Part of the problem with Trump is that he is so mercurial. He’s so idiosyncratic that, just when you think you figured out the Trump doctrine, he goes and says something that kind of sounds like the opposite of the Trump doctrine. But I do think that there is one coherent worldview that Trump seems to espouse and has espoused for a long time. The first ad he took out when he was a real estate developer was in 1987. It was an ad about how Japan was ripping us off economically and Europe was ripping us off by free-riding on security. And what that represents, fundamentally, is a rejection of the open international system that the United States and Europe have built over the last eight decades."
Trump’s first visit to Russia was in 1987.
I know it’s considered paranoiac to claim that Trump is a Russian operative but he certainly behaves like it much of the time.
Robert Harris wrote ‘The Ghost’, loosely modelled on the Blair’s, with the idea that the PMs wife was an agent of a foreign power and had been from the start. But that’s fiction. Does anyone seriously believe that Trump is a Russian agent? The more prosaic explanation is that he is a massive arse who wants the put USA first. Unpalatable as it is to us in Europe there is an element of truth to the idea that Western Europe has had an easy ride with the US playing role of global peacekeeper. Countries like Ireland, for instance, absolutely take the piss assured that Britain will defend them, and many Americans will say the same about Europe. Isolationism in the US isn’t a new thing, after all.
The facts are the KGB have cultivated Trump since the 1980's; he has at various times been massively indebted to the Russian state; he has acted principally in the interest of Russia when it has conflicted with the interest of the United States that he is elected to represent.
Whether he has a staff ID and/or the code name Krasnov are details.
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Nothing helps dealing with Trump because he’s a dick and is only interested in what’s best for him but pissing him off will definitely not help.
Ultimately his vanity is key but he’s surrounded by nutters who won’t tell him he isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize by treating Ukraine like this and Russia like that. Maybe a “leaked” internal memo from the Nobel committee deploring his position might help.
I don't think it would make a scintilla of a difference.
When you are at the top, the single most important thing is to get information that conflicts with your world view. Because the tendency in any organization is to tell the boss what he wants to hear, because that way lies advancement. The optimum strategy for you in the organization is sub-optimum for the organization as a whole.
Telling Trump that (a) the Ukrainians support Zelenskky, or (b) that he won't get a Nobel Peace prize would likely never reach him (because who wants to bring him bad news), and even if it did, cognitive dissonance would set in, and it would be ignored.
Trump is not going to change his mind on Ukraine. Therefore, Western Europe needs to decide whether to leave Ukraine to its fate, or whether it should step up.
Stepping up is incredibly risky. Allowing Russia to win by withholding aid is immoral, and likely just storing up problems for next time.
I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the lowest risk strategy is to drive Russia out of Ukraine. Maybe that can be achieved solely by giving Ukraine all the materiel she needs. Maybe it requires more. But the alternative is merely storing up more trouble for the future.
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Where are you going to move the frontline to.
Putin can end the war IMMEDIATELY by pulling back to the 1991 border...
Imagine a Federal Europe with a huge military under central command and control. Game changer.
It would be a disaster, we would have a single point of failure just like we do in America. Imagine that military being controlled by a European Trump, Orban or Schroder.
Why would you possibly want that?
Far better to imagine a coalition of European nations that actually spend a decent amount on their militaries each, who can work together.
More - a variety of coalitions for different purposes. The key point being that everyone in each is 100% committed to the aims of that specific alliance.
Yep. I am all for working closely with like minded countries. I certainly have no objection, for example, for British troops to be under French or Norwegian or Polish command if that is the best way for things to be organised for a specific campaign or operation.
But what we are learning is that static, long term organisations will eventually fail and that we, as indvidual nations, cannot rely on anyone else to come and pull us out of the fire. We must do that ourselves, yes together, but as equals and realising that we will, at times have fundemental differences of opinion and outlook which means our shared arrangements have to be completely flexible.
Standing a bit like a stockpile beans and ammo kind of guy there, Richard.
Nah. I recognise the value of states and governments in our defence where individuals cannot act alone. I mean I do stockpile beans but that is more for the next Carrington event rather than Prepper type mentality... or maybe a zombie apocalypse
But it is undeniably the cae that reliance on long term organisations to keep us safe inevitably leads us to end up in a Maginot Line situation. We are seeing that now with the US and it is about time more people started realising it.
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Nothing helps dealing with Trump because he’s a dick and is only interested in what’s best for him but pissing him off will definitely not help.
Ultimately his vanity is key but he’s surrounded by nutters who won’t tell him he isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize by treating Ukraine like this and Russia like that. Maybe a “leaked” internal memo from the Nobel committee deploring his position might help.
If the US doesn't confirm that they stand by article 5 we should kick them out of NATO. Let's face it, NATO was only a buffer to protect USA's arse during the Cold war. I wonder if whether the chips had come down they would have piled in anyway.
Up until the end of the Cold War yes. If only because they had hundreds of thousands of their own troops and people over in Europe. Once they had decided on the ill named 'peace dividend' then I suspect it was a lot less likely.
One thing that’s been bugging me is that we’re simultaneously assured that the invasion can’t be defeated, so a truce is imperative - and at the same time that Russia constitutes no threat to Europe. The two things aren’t really compatible.
"To the extent you feel you can define it, what’s the Trump doctrine?
Part of the problem with Trump is that he is so mercurial. He’s so idiosyncratic that, just when you think you figured out the Trump doctrine, he goes and says something that kind of sounds like the opposite of the Trump doctrine. But I do think that there is one coherent worldview that Trump seems to espouse and has espoused for a long time. The first ad he took out when he was a real estate developer was in 1987. It was an ad about how Japan was ripping us off economically and Europe was ripping us off by free-riding on security. And what that represents, fundamentally, is a rejection of the open international system that the United States and Europe have built over the last eight decades."
Trump’s first visit to Russia was in 1987.
I know it’s considered paranoiac to claim that Trump is a Russian operative but he certainly behaves like it much of the time.
I'm not sure he is exactly a Russian asset. More in the pocket of assorted oligarchs who are bigger and nastier than he is. Which is effectively the same thing in practice, but philosophically slightly different.
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Nothing helps dealing with Trump because he’s a dick and is only interested in what’s best for him but pissing him off will definitely not help.
Ultimately his vanity is key but he’s surrounded by nutters who won’t tell him he isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize by treating Ukraine like this and Russia like that. Maybe a “leaked” internal memo from the Nobel committee deploring his position might help.
If the US doesn't confirm that they stand by article 5 we should kick them out of NATO. Let's face it, NATO was only a buffer to protect USA's arse during the Cold war. I wonder if whether the chips had come down they would have piled in anyway.
Trumpites wouldn't care about that, they think Europe and Canada should be responsible for their own defence against Putin anyway.
Though if China invaded the west coast of America would Europe and Canada definitely send troops and arms and funds to the US to held them defeat the Chinese? At the moment debateable while the Trump administration is in power
One thing that’s been bugging me is that we’re simultaneously assured that the invasion can’t be defeated, so a truce is imperative - and at the same time that Russia constitutes no threat to Europe. The two things aren’t really compatible.
Who is assuring us that Russia is no threat to Europe? It’s been conducting a hybrid war against Europe for a decade or more.
It is clearly a fascist, revanchist state, with designs on the Baltics and perhaps even the entire former Warsaw Bloc.
"To the extent you feel you can define it, what’s the Trump doctrine?
Part of the problem with Trump is that he is so mercurial. He’s so idiosyncratic that, just when you think you figured out the Trump doctrine, he goes and says something that kind of sounds like the opposite of the Trump doctrine. But I do think that there is one coherent worldview that Trump seems to espouse and has espoused for a long time. The first ad he took out when he was a real estate developer was in 1987. It was an ad about how Japan was ripping us off economically and Europe was ripping us off by free-riding on security. And what that represents, fundamentally, is a rejection of the open international system that the United States and Europe have built over the last eight decades."
Trump’s first visit to Russia was in 1987.
I know it’s considered paranoiac to claim that Trump is a Russian operative but he certainly behaves like it much of the time.
I'm not sure he is exactly a Russian asset. More in the pocket of assorted oligarchs who are bigger and nastier than he is. Which is effectively the same thing in practice, but philosophically slightly different.
I don't think Trump is a Russian agent at all.
I think it is really very simple: Trump comes from a time when Russia was the other Superpower. He cannot imagine how a small country like Ukraine could possibly win against them, and therefore they are behaving illogically in resisting. (Just as Canada and Greenland Denmark would be illogical to resist US aggression.)
Words will not change his mind. The older you get, the more severe cognitive dissonance is.
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Nothing helps dealing with Trump because he’s a dick and is only interested in what’s best for him but pissing him off will definitely not help.
Ultimately his vanity is key but he’s surrounded by nutters who won’t tell him he isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize by treating Ukraine like this and Russia like that. Maybe a “leaked” internal memo from the Nobel committee deploring his position might help.
I don't think it would make a scintilla of a difference.
When you are at the top, the single most important thing is to get information that conflicts with your world view. Because the tendency in any organization is to tell the boss what he wants to hear, because that way lies advancement. The optimum strategy for you in the organization is sub-optimum for the organization as a whole.
Telling Trump that (a) the Ukrainians support Zelenskky, or (b) that he won't get a Nobel Peace prize would likely never reach him (because who wants to bring him bad news), and even if it did, cognitive dissonance would set in, and it would be ignored.
Trump is not going to change his mind on Ukraine. Therefore, Western Europe needs to decide whether to leave Ukraine to its fate, or whether it should step up.
Stepping up is incredibly risky. Allowing Russia to win by withholding aid is immoral, and likely just storing up problems for next time.
I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the lowest risk strategy is to drive Russia out of Ukraine. Maybe that can be achieved solely by giving Ukraine all the materiel she needs. Maybe it requires more. But the alternative is merely storing up more trouble for the future.
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Nothing helps dealing with Trump because he’s a dick and is only interested in what’s best for him but pissing him off will definitely not help.
Ultimately his vanity is key but he’s surrounded by nutters who won’t tell him he isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize by treating Ukraine like this and Russia like that. Maybe a “leaked” internal memo from the Nobel committee deploring his position might help.
If the US doesn't confirm that they stand by article 5 we should kick them out of NATO. Let's face it, NATO was only a buffer to protect USA's arse during the Cold war. I wonder if whether the chips had come down they would have piled in anyway.
Trumpites wouldn't care about that, they think Europe and Canada should be responsible for their own defence against Putin.
Though if China invaded the west coast of America would Europe and Canada definitely send troops and arms and funds to the US to held them defeat the Chinese? At the moment debateable while the Trump administration is in power
In that scenario, we could tell Trump to make peace with Putin at any cost!
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Nothing helps dealing with Trump because he’s a dick and is only interested in what’s best for him but pissing him off will definitely not help.
Ultimately his vanity is key but he’s surrounded by nutters who won’t tell him he isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize by treating Ukraine like this and Russia like that. Maybe a “leaked” internal memo from the Nobel committee deploring his position might help.
I don't think it would make a scintilla of a difference.
When you are at the top, the single most important thing is to get information that conflicts with your world view. Because the tendency in any organization is to tell the boss what he wants to hear, because that way lies advancement. The optimum strategy for you in the organization is sub-optimum for the organization as a whole.
Telling Trump that (a) the Ukrainians support Zelenskky, or (b) that he won't get a Nobel Peace prize would likely never reach him (because who wants to bring him bad news), and even if it did, cognitive dissonance would set in, and it would be ignored.
Trump is not going to change his mind on Ukraine. Therefore, Western Europe needs to decide whether to leave Ukraine to its fate, or whether it should step up.
Stepping up is incredibly risky. Allowing Russia to win by withholding aid is immoral, and likely just storing up problems for next time.
I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the lowest risk strategy is to drive Russia out of Ukraine. Maybe that can be achieved solely by giving Ukraine all the materiel she needs. Maybe it requires more. But the alternative is merely storing up more trouble for the future.
Welcome Robert. Took you long enough
It's the problem of being at the top, @StillWaters.
Yes, what a contrast. Starmer treats Zelensky with the dignity and respect he deserves. Yesterday, Trump and Vance's treatment of Zelensky was significantly worse than Blackadder's of Baldric.
"To the extent you feel you can define it, what’s the Trump doctrine?
Part of the problem with Trump is that he is so mercurial. He’s so idiosyncratic that, just when you think you figured out the Trump doctrine, he goes and says something that kind of sounds like the opposite of the Trump doctrine. But I do think that there is one coherent worldview that Trump seems to espouse and has espoused for a long time. The first ad he took out when he was a real estate developer was in 1987. It was an ad about how Japan was ripping us off economically and Europe was ripping us off by free-riding on security. And what that represents, fundamentally, is a rejection of the open international system that the United States and Europe have built over the last eight decades."
Trump’s first visit to Russia was in 1987.
I know it’s considered paranoiac to claim that Trump is a Russian operative but he certainly behaves like it much of the time.
I'm not sure he is exactly a Russian asset. More in the pocket of assorted oligarchs who are bigger and nastier than he is. Which is effectively the same thing in practice, but philosophically slightly different.
I don't think Trump is a Russian agent at all.
I think it is really very simple: Trump comes from a time when Russia was the other Superpower. He cannot imagine how a small country like Ukraine could possibly win against them, and therefore they are behaving illogically in resisting. (Just as Canada and Greenland Denmark would be illogical to resist US aggression.)
Words will not change his mind. The older you get, the more severe cognitive dissonance is.
Therefore facts need to change.
And this is why Europe needs to step up.
How many New York businessmen were visiting Russia in 1987?
One thing that’s been bugging me is that we’re simultaneously assured that the invasion can’t be defeated, so a truce is imperative - and at the same time that Russia constitutes no threat to Europe. The two things aren’t really compatible.
Who is assuring us that Russia is no threat to Europe? It’s been conducting a hybrid war against Europe for a decade or more.
It is clearly a fascist, revanchist state, with designs on the Baltics and perhaps even the entire former Warsaw Bloc.
Quite:
Russia has been quite happy to bribe our politicians, cut underseat communications cables and spread disinformation.
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Nothing helps dealing with Trump because he’s a dick and is only interested in what’s best for him but pissing him off will definitely not help.
Ultimately his vanity is key but he’s surrounded by nutters who won’t tell him he isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize by treating Ukraine like this and Russia like that. Maybe a “leaked” internal memo from the Nobel committee deploring his position might help.
I don't think it would make a scintilla of a difference.
When you are at the top, the single most important thing is to get information that conflicts with your world view. Because the tendency in any organization is to tell the boss what he wants to hear, because that way lies advancement. The optimum strategy for you in the organization is sub-optimum for the organization as a whole.
Telling Trump that (a) the Ukrainians support Zelenskky, or (b) that he won't get a Nobel Peace prize would likely never reach him (because who wants to bring him bad news), and even if it did, cognitive dissonance would set in, and it would be ignored.
Trump is not going to change his mind on Ukraine. Therefore, Western Europe needs to decide whether to leave Ukraine to its fate, or whether it should step up.
Stepping up is incredibly risky. Allowing Russia to win by withholding aid is immoral, and likely just storing up problems for next time.
I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the lowest risk strategy is to drive Russia out of Ukraine. Maybe that can be achieved solely by giving Ukraine all the materiel she needs. Maybe it requires more. But the alternative is merely storing up more trouble for the future.
That tends to link to my last comment.
I think the position that Russia constitutes no threat to Europe is patently absurd. And a Russia with control over a substantial proportion of Ukraine, and restored economic relations with the US would present a much larger future threat.
I’m also tending to your conclusion. A maximalist “drive Russia out” might be a lot harder than (for example) reversing their advance, and creating a defensible border, though.
One thing that’s been bugging me is that we’re simultaneously assured that the invasion can’t be defeated, so a truce is imperative - and at the same time that Russia constitutes no threat to Europe. The two things aren’t really compatible.
Who is assuring us that Russia is no threat to Europe? It’s been conducting a hybrid war against Europe for a decade or more.
It is clearly a fascist, revanchist state, with designs on the Baltics and perhaps even the entire former Warsaw Bloc.
Quite a large number of those arguing for immediate peace without conditions have been saying Putin wouldn’t dare invade a NATO state.
"To the extent you feel you can define it, what’s the Trump doctrine?
Part of the problem with Trump is that he is so mercurial. He’s so idiosyncratic that, just when you think you figured out the Trump doctrine, he goes and says something that kind of sounds like the opposite of the Trump doctrine. But I do think that there is one coherent worldview that Trump seems to espouse and has espoused for a long time. The first ad he took out when he was a real estate developer was in 1987. It was an ad about how Japan was ripping us off economically and Europe was ripping us off by free-riding on security. And what that represents, fundamentally, is a rejection of the open international system that the United States and Europe have built over the last eight decades."
Trump’s first visit to Russia was in 1987.
I know it’s considered paranoiac to claim that Trump is a Russian operative but he certainly behaves like it much of the time.
I'm not sure he is exactly a Russian asset. More in the pocket of assorted oligarchs who are bigger and nastier than he is. Which is effectively the same thing in practice, but philosophically slightly different.
I don't think Trump is a Russian agent at all.
I think it is really very simple: Trump comes from a time when Russia was the other Superpower. He cannot imagine how a small country like Ukraine could possibly win against them, and therefore they are behaving illogically in resisting. (Just as Canada and Greenland Denmark would be illogical to resist US aggression.)
Words will not change his mind. The older you get, the more severe cognitive dissonance is.
Therefore facts need to change.
And this is why Europe needs to step up.
How many New York businessmen were visiting Russia in 1987?
More than you would think: see the history of Occidental Petroleum.
One thing that’s been bugging me is that we’re simultaneously assured that the invasion can’t be defeated, so a truce is imperative - and at the same time that Russia constitutes no threat to Europe. The two things aren’t really compatible.
Who is assuring us that Russia is no threat to Europe? It’s been conducting a hybrid war against Europe for a decade or more.
It is clearly a fascist, revanchist state, with designs on the Baltics and perhaps even the entire former Warsaw Bloc.
Quite:
Russia has been quite happy to bribe our politicians, cut underseat communications cables and spread disinformation.
As predicted by me on the evening of the election last year.
Although I expect a kind of dead cat bounce in response to certain tax cuts this year.
Yeah, a few of us said the same. It was why I wanted a Harris win. She was a terrible candidate but less terrible than Trump. A bit like Starmer v Sunak. Trumps policy on tariffs was mad and he’s been even madder since he won.
He promised people lower bills and tackling inflation. I suspect many reverse ferrets once the impact is of his economic policies bites
"To the extent you feel you can define it, what’s the Trump doctrine?
Part of the problem with Trump is that he is so mercurial. He’s so idiosyncratic that, just when you think you figured out the Trump doctrine, he goes and says something that kind of sounds like the opposite of the Trump doctrine. But I do think that there is one coherent worldview that Trump seems to espouse and has espoused for a long time. The first ad he took out when he was a real estate developer was in 1987. It was an ad about how Japan was ripping us off economically and Europe was ripping us off by free-riding on security. And what that represents, fundamentally, is a rejection of the open international system that the United States and Europe have built over the last eight decades."
Trump’s first visit to Russia was in 1987.
I know it’s considered paranoiac to claim that Trump is a Russian operative but he certainly behaves like it much of the time.
I'm not sure he is exactly a Russian asset. More in the pocket of assorted oligarchs who are bigger and nastier than he is. Which is effectively the same thing in practice, but philosophically slightly different.
"To the extent you feel you can define it, what’s the Trump doctrine?
Part of the problem with Trump is that he is so mercurial. He’s so idiosyncratic that, just when you think you figured out the Trump doctrine, he goes and says something that kind of sounds like the opposite of the Trump doctrine. But I do think that there is one coherent worldview that Trump seems to espouse and has espoused for a long time. The first ad he took out when he was a real estate developer was in 1987. It was an ad about how Japan was ripping us off economically and Europe was ripping us off by free-riding on security. And what that represents, fundamentally, is a rejection of the open international system that the United States and Europe have built over the last eight decades."
Trump’s first visit to Russia was in 1987.
I know it’s considered paranoiac to claim that Trump is a Russian operative but he certainly behaves like it much of the time.
I'm not sure he is exactly a Russian asset. More in the pocket of assorted oligarchs who are bigger and nastier than he is. Which is effectively the same thing in practice, but philosophically slightly different.
I don't think Trump is a Russian agent at all.
I think it is really very simple: Trump comes from a time when Russia was the other Superpower. He cannot imagine how a small country like Ukraine could possibly win against them, and therefore they are behaving illogically in resisting. (Just as Canada and Greenland Denmark would be illogical to resist US aggression.)
Words will not change his mind. The older you get, the more severe cognitive dissonance is.
Therefore facts need to change.
And this is why Europe needs to step up.
How many New York businessmen were visiting Russia in 1987?
More than you would think: see the history of Occidental Petroleum.
That’s a company Warren Buffet is a big investor in.
One thing that’s been bugging me is that we’re simultaneously assured that the invasion can’t be defeated, so a truce is imperative - and at the same time that Russia constitutes no threat to Europe. The two things aren’t really compatible.
Who is assuring us that Russia is no threat to Europe? It’s been conducting a hybrid war against Europe for a decade or more.
It is clearly a fascist, revanchist state, with designs on the Baltics and perhaps even the entire former Warsaw Bloc.
Quite:
Russia has been quite happy to bribe our politicians, cut underseat communications cables and spread disinformation.
And we've just sat there and taken it.
And, of course, kill people on British soil.
You don't think they were really on a cathedral tour then?
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Nothing helps dealing with Trump because he’s a dick and is only interested in what’s best for him but pissing him off will definitely not help.
Ultimately his vanity is key but he’s surrounded by nutters who won’t tell him he isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize by treating Ukraine like this and Russia like that. Maybe a “leaked” internal memo from the Nobel committee deploring his position might help.
If the US doesn't confirm that they stand by article 5 we should kick them out of NATO. Let's face it, NATO was only a buffer to protect USA's arse during the Cold war. I wonder if whether the chips had come down they would have piled in anyway.
Trumpites wouldn't care about that, they think Europe and Canada should be responsible for their own defence against Putin.
Though if China invaded the west coast of America would Europe and Canada definitely send troops and arms and funds to the US to held them defeat the Chinese? At the moment debateable while the Trump administration is in power
In that scenario, we could tell Trump to make peace with Putin at any cost!
"To the extent you feel you can define it, what’s the Trump doctrine?
Part of the problem with Trump is that he is so mercurial. He’s so idiosyncratic that, just when you think you figured out the Trump doctrine, he goes and says something that kind of sounds like the opposite of the Trump doctrine. But I do think that there is one coherent worldview that Trump seems to espouse and has espoused for a long time. The first ad he took out when he was a real estate developer was in 1987. It was an ad about how Japan was ripping us off economically and Europe was ripping us off by free-riding on security. And what that represents, fundamentally, is a rejection of the open international system that the United States and Europe have built over the last eight decades."
Trump’s first visit to Russia was in 1987.
I know it’s considered paranoiac to claim that Trump is a Russian operative but he certainly behaves like it much of the time.
I'm not sure he is exactly a Russian asset. More in the pocket of assorted oligarchs who are bigger and nastier than he is. Which is effectively the same thing in practice, but philosophically slightly different.
I don't think Trump is a Russian agent at all.
I think it is really very simple: Trump comes from a time when Russia was the other Superpower. He cannot imagine how a small country like Ukraine could possibly win against them, and therefore they are behaving illogically in resisting. (Just as Canada and Greenland Denmark would be illogical to resist US aggression.)
Words will not change his mind. The older you get, the more severe cognitive dissonance is.
Therefore facts need to change.
And this is why Europe needs to step up.
How many New York businessmen were visiting Russia in 1987?
The clues are in Trump's relationship with Deutsche Bank and Deutsche Bank's activities in Russia. That's where part of the story is.
"To the extent you feel you can define it, what’s the Trump doctrine?
Part of the problem with Trump is that he is so mercurial. He’s so idiosyncratic that, just when you think you figured out the Trump doctrine, he goes and says something that kind of sounds like the opposite of the Trump doctrine. But I do think that there is one coherent worldview that Trump seems to espouse and has espoused for a long time. The first ad he took out when he was a real estate developer was in 1987. It was an ad about how Japan was ripping us off economically and Europe was ripping us off by free-riding on security. And what that represents, fundamentally, is a rejection of the open international system that the United States and Europe have built over the last eight decades."
Trump’s first visit to Russia was in 1987.
I know it’s considered paranoiac to claim that Trump is a Russian operative but he certainly behaves like it much of the time.
I'm not sure he is exactly a Russian asset. More in the pocket of assorted oligarchs who are bigger and nastier than he is. Which is effectively the same thing in practice, but philosophically slightly different.
I don't think Trump is a Russian agent at all.
I think it is really very simple: Trump comes from a time when Russia was the other Superpower. He cannot imagine how a small country like Ukraine could possibly win against them, and therefore they are behaving illogically in resisting. (Just as Canada and Greenland Denmark would be illogical to resist US aggression.)
Words will not change his mind. The older you get, the more severe cognitive dissonance is.
Therefore facts need to change.
And this is why Europe needs to step up.
How many New York businessmen were visiting Russia in 1987?
Zelenskyy is apparently going to meet King Charles tomorrow . I’m really pleased about that and good to see Starmer pushing the boat out to make Zelenskyy feel loved which is true of how the vast majority of Brits feel about him .
Hopefully the vast majority of British people don't feel anything so nauseatingly un-British.
It's nauseatingly un-British to support the democracy invaded by the much larger neighbour?
"A baseless conspiracy theory is circulating among pro-Trump social media users alleging that high-profile Democratic figures Antony Blinken, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland, and Alexander Vindman held a conference call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy during his flight to Washington.
The conspiracy theory went viral, with Republicans including US special envoy, Richard Grenell, spreading the baseless claim.
The claim suggests that they advised him to “stand strong” and be “tough” against president Donald Trump before the confrontation between Zelenskyy, Trump, and vice president JD Vance in the Oval Office took place.
Worth noting: The initial claim, posted by a pro-Trump author on social media, provided no source or evidence and was later acknowledged by herself as speculation."
Yes, what a contrast. Starmer treats Zelensky with the dignity and respect he deserves. Yesterday, Trump and Vance's treatment of Zelensky was significantly worse than Blackadder's of Baldric.
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Nothing helps dealing with Trump because he’s a dick and is only interested in what’s best for him but pissing him off will definitely not help.
Ultimately his vanity is key but he’s surrounded by nutters who won’t tell him he isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize by treating Ukraine like this and Russia like that. Maybe a “leaked” internal memo from the Nobel committee deploring his position might help.
If the US doesn't confirm that they stand by article 5 we should kick them out of NATO. Let's face it, NATO was only a buffer to protect USA's arse during the Cold war. I wonder if whether the chips had come down they would have piled in anyway.
Trumpites wouldn't care about that, they think Europe and Canada should be responsible for their own defence against Putin anyway.
Though if China invaded the west coast of America would Europe and Canada definitely send troops and arms and funds to the US to held them defeat the Chinese? At the moment debateable while the Trump administration is in power
The Europeans obviously would command Trump to Berlaymont in Brussels and tell Trump the invasion of America was all his fault for not doing a deal with Xi and by the way he doesn't have any cards.
"A baseless conspiracy theory is circulating among pro-Trump social media users alleging that high-profile Democratic figures Antony Blinken, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland, and Alexander Vindman held a conference call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy during his flight to Washington.
The conspiracy theory went viral, with Republicans including US special envoy, Richard Grenell, spreading the baseless claim.
The claim suggests that they advised him to “stand strong” and be “tough” against president Donald Trump before the confrontation between Zelenskyy, Trump, and vice president JD Vance in the Oval Office took place.
Worth noting: The initial claim, posted by a pro-Trump author on social media, provided no source or evidence and was later acknowledged by herself as speculation."
One thing that’s been bugging me is that we’re simultaneously assured that the invasion can’t be defeated, so a truce is imperative - and at the same time that Russia constitutes no threat to Europe. The two things aren’t really compatible.
Who is assuring us that Russia is no threat to Europe? It’s been conducting a hybrid war against Europe for a decade or more.
It is clearly a fascist, revanchist state, with designs on the Baltics and perhaps even the entire former Warsaw Bloc.
Quite:
Russia has been quite happy to bribe our politicians, cut underseat communications cables and spread disinformation.
And we've just sat there and taken it.
And, of course, kill people on British soil.
Based on your residence in the USA, what it the view of your neighbours and colleagues? You may have a different view to most of us.
Yes, what a contrast. Starmer treats Zelensky with the dignity and respect he deserves. Yesterday, Trump and Vance's treatment of Zelensky was significantly worse than Blackadder's of Baldric.
"Baldrick, what begins with "Come here" and ends in "Ow!"?
Not necessarily. In the 1980s the economic policies pursued by Thatcher and Reagan brought grave devastation to existing industries and huge poll deficits. But a divided opposition and the Government ability to assemble new voter coalitions carried them over the hump. Similarly, regardless of how bad Trumpism gets, the USA will adapt and false/misleading narratives pushed by Musk, Besos et al will enable them to get over their adjustment hump. And, as is apparent, the Dems are concentrating on under-bus-throwing instead of constructing a positive vision that attracts votes. I'm not convinced the GOP will lose in 2026 nor 2028.
"A baseless conspiracy theory is circulating among pro-Trump social media users alleging that high-profile Democratic figures Antony Blinken, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland, and Alexander Vindman held a conference call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy during his flight to Washington.
The conspiracy theory went viral, with Republicans including US special envoy, Richard Grenell, spreading the baseless claim.
The claim suggests that they advised him to “stand strong” and be “tough” against president Donald Trump before the confrontation between Zelenskyy, Trump, and vice president JD Vance in the Oval Office took place.
Worth noting: The initial claim, posted by a pro-Trump author on social media, provided no source or evidence and was later acknowledged by herself as speculation."
I think it made a sort of sense for Zelensky to display some sass in the Oval office. In many ways he is now playing to Europe as his main sponsor. Judging from the response from the PB faithful, including the rush to donate their hard-earned cash, he's played a blinder.
As predicted by me on the evening of the election last year.
Although I expect a kind of dead cat bounce in response to certain tax cuts this year.
Yeah, a few of us said the same. It was why I wanted a Harris win. She was a terrible candidate but less terrible than Trump. A bit like Starmer v Sunak. Trumps policy on tariffs was mad and he’s been even madder since he won.
He promised people lower bills and tackling inflation. I suspect many reverse ferrets once the impact is of his economic policies bites
NATO chief: Zelenskyy must 'find a way' to fix ties with Trump
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy must "find a way" to restore his relationship with US counterpart Donald Trump, NATO chief Mark Rutte told the BBC on Saturday, a day after Zelenskyy and Trump clashed at the White House.
Rutte said that he had told Zelenskyy: "You have to find a way, dear Volodymyr, to restore your relationship with Donald Trump and the American administration."
I take his point, but it's devilish tricky for Zelenskyy to know how to deal with these characters, when they're determined to showboat and play silly beggars. Maybe a meeting on neutral turf behind closed doors with just Trump and selected few of the more sensible US players (whoever they might be). Certainly no Vance within a thousand miles.
I have been with my family today and just catching up on the news
Full marks to Starmer in embracing Zelenskyy so warmly in Downing Street and speaking for the nation our support for him and Ukraine
Also excellent that Zelenskyy meets the King tomorrow in a show of support for the beleaguered war leader
It seems the head of NATO and others are saying that bridges have to be repaired with Trump, which is no doubt true, but how and when that happens, if it happens is open conjecture
Anyway we must support Zelenskyy and Ukraine irrespective of the madmen in the White House
I have been with my family today and just catching up on the news
Full marks to Starmer in embracing Zelenskyy so warmly in Downing Street and speaking for the nation our support for him and Ukraine
Also excellent that Zelenskyy meets the King tomorrow in a show of support for the beleaguered war leader
It seems the head of NATO and others are saying that bridges have to be repaired with Trump, which is no doubt true, but how and when that happens, if it happens is open conjecture
Anyway we must support Zelenskyy and Ukraine irrespective of the madmen in the White House
Zelensky should wear what he thinks is appropriate.
A tee shirt with **** off you orange **** printed on it?
Yes, nothing could help Ukraine more at this moment than pissing off the thin skinned leader of the most powerful military in the world so we can giggle about the LOLs.
It's not clear that kowtowing or imploring him helps either.
Perhaps we're better off admitting that US support for Ukraine is over, and working out how we can help move the frontline so that Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength.
I do wonder if the right answer is simply for Europe - the US, France, Germany and Poland - to deploy troops to Ukraine. Now, sure, that means the end of NATO, but candidly isn't it over anyway? Does anyway truly believe that the US would send troops to defend Estonia?
Nothing helps dealing with Trump because he’s a dick and is only interested in what’s best for him but pissing him off will definitely not help.
Ultimately his vanity is key but he’s surrounded by nutters who won’t tell him he isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize by treating Ukraine like this and Russia like that. Maybe a “leaked” internal memo from the Nobel committee deploring his position might help.
I don't think it would make a scintilla of a difference.
When you are at the top, the single most important thing is to get information that conflicts with your world view. Because the tendency in any organization is to tell the boss what he wants to hear, because that way lies advancement. The optimum strategy for you in the organization is sub-optimum for the organization as a whole.
Telling Trump that (a) the Ukrainians support Zelenskky, or (b) that he won't get a Nobel Peace prize would likely never reach him (because who wants to bring him bad news), and even if it did, cognitive dissonance would set in, and it would be ignored.
Trump is not going to change his mind on Ukraine. Therefore, Western Europe needs to decide whether to leave Ukraine to its fate, or whether it should step up.
Stepping up is incredibly risky. Allowing Russia to win by withholding aid is immoral, and likely just storing up problems for next time.
I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the lowest risk strategy is to drive Russia out of Ukraine. Maybe that can be achieved solely by giving Ukraine all the materiel she needs. Maybe it requires more. But the alternative is merely storing up more trouble for the future.
Welcome Robert. Took you long enough
It's the problem of being at the top, @StillWaters.
Next time I’ll pull you up if you need. You only have to ask
NATO chief: Zelenskyy must 'find a way' to fix ties with Trump
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy must "find a way" to restore his relationship with US counterpart Donald Trump, NATO chief Mark Rutte told the BBC on Saturday, a day after Zelenskyy and Trump clashed at the White House.
Rutte said that he had told Zelenskyy: "You have to find a way, dear Volodymyr, to restore your relationship with Donald Trump and the American administration."
I take his point, but it's devilish tricky for Zelenskyy to know how to deal with these characters, when they're determined to showboat and play silly beggars. Maybe a meeting on neutral turf behind closed doors with just Trump and selected few of the more sensible US players (whoever they might be). Certainly no Vance within a thousand miles.
I think Rutte (as secretary general of an organisation intricately linked to the US, and as a lifelong pro-American who supported the Iraq war) has yet to twig (unlike Merz?) that the US isn't on Ukraine's side.
Bloomberg suggests Trump might consider meeting Zelenskyy again if the latter issues a full public apology to Trump.
I have been with my family today and just catching up on the news
Full marks to Starmer in embracing Zelenskyy so warmly in Downing Street and speaking for the nation our support for him and Ukraine
Also excellent that Zelenskyy meets the King tomorrow in a show of support for the beleaguered war leader
It seems the head of NATO and others are saying that bridges have to be repaired with Trump, which is no doubt true, but how and when that happens, if it happens is open conjecture
Anyway we must support Zelenskyy and Ukraine irrespective of the madmen in the White House
Well said Big G. Hope you've had a nice day?
Thank you and yes my family all came round to celebrate my 81st though no actual day this year
I also had a long conversation with our son and his wife in Vancouver who are appalled at Trump but also recognize Canada has been taking the US for granted for far too long
They confirm that their politics is very uncertain but not impressed by Mark Carney
I have been with my family today and just catching up on the news
Full marks to Starmer in embracing Zelenskyy so warmly in Downing Street and speaking for the nation our support for him and Ukraine
Also excellent that Zelenskyy meets the King tomorrow in a show of support for the beleaguered war leader
It seems the head of NATO and others are saying that bridges have to be repaired with Trump, which is no doubt true, but how and when that happens, if it happens is open conjecture
Anyway we must support Zelenskyy and Ukraine irrespective of the madmen in the White House
Well said Big G. Hope you've had a nice day?
Thank you and yes my family all came round to celebrate my 81st though no actual day this year
I also had a long conversation with our son and his wife in Vancouver who are appalled at Trump but also recognize Canada has been taking the US for granted for far too long
They confirm that their politics is very uncertain but not impressed by Mark Carney
Not necessarily. In the 1980s the economic policies pursued by Thatcher and Reagan brought grave devastation to existing industries and huge poll deficits. But a divided opposition and the Government ability to assemble new voter coalitions carried them over the hump. Similarly, regardless of how bad Trumpism gets, the USA will adapt and false/misleading narratives pushed by Musk, Besos et al will enable them to get over their adjustment hump. And, as is apparent, the Dems are concentrating on under-bus-throwing instead of constructing a positive vision that attracts votes. I'm not convinced the GOP will lose in 2026 nor 2028.
Thatcher and Reagan did not impose tariffs which hit all consumers, Thatcher and Reagan's union reforms and welfare and spending cuts hit some but not all the population and by 1983 and 1984 their tax cuts had boosted growth enough to win while they had contained inflation. In 1930 by contrast the Smoot-Hawley tariffs Hoover as President reluctantly signed were a key factor in worsening the Great Depression and saw the GOP lose Congress and the White House in 1932 and they did not win the Presidency back for 20 years until Ike in 1952 who won on an uber centrist ticket.
NATO chief: Zelenskyy must 'find a way' to fix ties with Trump
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy must "find a way" to restore his relationship with US counterpart Donald Trump, NATO chief Mark Rutte told the BBC on Saturday, a day after Zelenskyy and Trump clashed at the White House.
Rutte said that he had told Zelenskyy: "You have to find a way, dear Volodymyr, to restore your relationship with Donald Trump and the American administration."
I take his point, but it's devilish tricky for Zelenskyy to know how to deal with these characters, when they're determined to showboat and play silly beggars. Maybe a meeting on neutral turf behind closed doors with just Trump and selected few of the more sensible US players (whoever they might be). Certainly no Vance within a thousand miles.
I think Rutte (as secretary general of an organisation intricately linked to the US, and as a lifelong pro-American who supported the Iraq war) has yet to twig (unlike Merz?) that the US isn't on Ukraine's side.
Bloomberg suggests Trump might consider meeting Zelenskyy again if the latter issues a full public apology to Trump.
Either they know this and are playing along to buy time or are in denial and just refuse to accept that soon the US will be sending arms to Russia !
I have been with my family today and just catching up on the news
Full marks to Starmer in embracing Zelenskyy so warmly in Downing Street and speaking for the nation our support for him and Ukraine
Also excellent that Zelenskyy meets the King tomorrow in a show of support for the beleaguered war leader
It seems the head of NATO and others are saying that bridges have to be repaired with Trump, which is no doubt true, but how and when that happens, if it happens is open conjecture
Anyway we must support Zelenskyy and Ukraine irrespective of the madmen in the White House
Well said Big G. Hope you've had a nice day?
Thank you and yes my family all came round to celebrate my 81st though no actual day this year
I also had a long conversation with our son and his wife in Vancouver who are appalled at Trump but also recognize Canada has been taking the US for granted for far too long
They confirm that their politics is very uncertain but not impressed by Mark Carney
I have been with my family today and just catching up on the news
Full marks to Starmer in embracing Zelenskyy so warmly in Downing Street and speaking for the nation our support for him and Ukraine
Also excellent that Zelenskyy meets the King tomorrow in a show of support for the beleaguered war leader
It seems the head of NATO and others are saying that bridges have to be repaired with Trump, which is no doubt true, but how and when that happens, if it happens is open conjecture
Anyway we must support Zelenskyy and Ukraine irrespective of the madmen in the White House
Well said Big G. Hope you've had a nice day?
Thank you and yes my family all came round to celebrate my 81st though no actual day this year
I also had a long conversation with our son and his wife in Vancouver who are appalled at Trump but also recognize Canada has been taking the US for granted for far too long
They confirm that their politics is very uncertain but not impressed by Mark Carney
I notice Electoral Calculus, in it's latest prediction, now has REF short (134 seats) of an overall majority for the first time.
But given recent developments could we be at Peak Reform?
Hopefully
How anyone can vote for Farage is beyond me
Come come now. They may offend your delicate sensibilities, but do you really think people who voted for the Tories to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands should do so again?
My take on Spatgate is that I don’t think there was a deliberate plan by anyone to sabotage the meeting. What happened was the result of thin skinned egotists losing it.
After about 30 mins the meeting which has been largely cordial is wrapping up. Vance makes a point targeted against Biden. Says Biden’s chest thumping didn’t stop Putin invading Ukraine. Vance says Trump has the answers - diplomacy (= dialogue) and dealing with Putin.
Z addresses Vance somewhat confrontationally. Makes the point that dealing with Putin doesn’t work. A deal was struck with Putin in 2022 and Putin went back on the deal. Z concludes to V “JD what kind of diplomacy you are speaking about? What do you mean?”
Vance is riled. He feels challenged by Z who is effectively saying Vance is wrong. Diplomacy doesn’t work with Putin.
Vance loses his cool. He is angry that Z has publicly disagreed with his one significant contribution to the meeting, challenging him in front of the whole world. He finds it disrespectful and petulantly reacts saying Zelensky is ungrateful. He raises his voice, points his finger, accuses Z of criticising America, says Ukraine is struggling in its war effort and calls Z disrespectful.
Z does not accept Vance’s portrayal of Ukraine struggling. Warns America that Putin could come for them next and that they will feel the influence (threat) of Russia
Trump - triggered initially by Vance saying Z is disrespecting America is further triggered by Z telling America what it feels and it all kicks off.
Vance pours oil onto the fire challenging Z by asking him if he has even thanked America for its help. Takes him to task for “campaigning for the Democrats in Pennsylvania”
It then further escalates.
Conclusion. Z was perhaps unwise to publicly challenge Vance’s “diplomacy thesis”. Vance felt belittled by this and reacted calling Z disrespectful and ungrateful. Trump was triggered by Vance and further triggered by Z forecasting America would in the future also fell threatened by Russia. Trump and Vance both lose it.
Both spacehopper and teh hillbilly have fragile egos. Both absolute arses.
My take on Spatgate is that I don’t think there was a deliberate plan by anyone to sabotage the meeting. What happened was the result of thin skinned egotists losing it.
After about 30 mins the meeting which has been largely cordial is wrapping up. Vance makes a point targeted against Biden. Says Biden’s chest thumping didn’t stop Putin invading Ukraine. Vance says Trump has the answers - diplomacy (= dialogue) and dealing with Putin.
Z addresses Vance somewhat confrontationally. Makes the point that dealing with Putin doesn’t work. A deal was struck with Putin in 2022 and Putin went back on the deal. Z concludes to V “JD what kind of diplomacy you are speaking about? What do you mean?”
Vance is riled. He feels challenged by Z who is effectively saying Vance is wrong. Diplomacy doesn’t work with Putin.
Vance loses his cool. He is angry that Z has publicly disagreed with his one significant contribution to the meeting, challenging him in front of the whole world. He finds it disrespectful and petulantly reacts saying Zelensky is ungrateful. He raises his voice, points his finger, accuses Z of criticising America, says Ukraine is struggling in its war effort and calls Z disrespectful.
Z does not accept Vance’s portrayal of Ukraine struggling. Warns America that Putin could come for them next and that they will feel the influence (threat) of Russia
Trump - triggered initially by Vance saying Z is disrespecting America is further triggered by Z telling America what it feels and it all kicks off.
Vance pours oil onto the fire challenging Z by asking him if he has even thanked America for its help. Takes him to task for “campaigning for the Democrats in Pennsylvania”
It then further escalates.
Conclusion. Z was perhaps unwise to publicly challenge Vance’s “diplomacy thesis”. Vance felt belittled by this and reacted calling Z disrespectful and ungrateful. Trump was triggered by Vance and further triggered by Z forecasting America would in the future also fell threatened by Russia. Trump and Vance both lose it.
Both spacehopper and teh hillbilly have fragile egos. Both absolute arses.
Good evening Malcom!
As someone now unknown to enjoy a bust up yourself, what was your take on the Trump - Zelensky - Oval Office slanging match?
"A baseless conspiracy theory is circulating among pro-Trump social media users alleging that high-profile Democratic figures Antony Blinken, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland, and Alexander Vindman held a conference call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy during his flight to Washington.
The conspiracy theory went viral, with Republicans including US special envoy, Richard Grenell, spreading the baseless claim.
The claim suggests that they advised him to “stand strong” and be “tough” against president Donald Trump before the confrontation between Zelenskyy, Trump, and vice president JD Vance in the Oval Office took place.
Worth noting: The initial claim, posted by a pro-Trump author on social media, provided no source or evidence and was later acknowledged by herself as speculation."
I think it made a sort of sense for Zelensky to display some sass in the Oval office. In many ways he is now playing to Europe as his main sponsor. Judging from the response from the PB faithful, including the rush to donate their hard-earned cash, he's played a blinder.
The Millwall goalkeeper tackle on the Crystal Palace forward was the most dangerous I have seen in over 70 years following football and a very serious head injury occurred to the Palace player who was treated on the pitch for 10 minutes before being taken directly to an ambulance and hospital
Just seen in the football the red card for Millwall's keeper, that has to be the most reckless challenge I've ever seen in football. Studs up into the head, that couldn't just end someone's career but someone's life too.
I get Millwall fans love their reputation of "no one likes us, we don't care" but for them to be chanting "let him die" when a player with a head injury is getting treatment is truly disgusting.
What's more shocking though is the FA saying that "let him die" chants aren't a breach of their regulations, but they're going to be investigating homophobic chants aimed at another player as they are. If that's the case, perhaps your regulations are a bit broken.
Comments
On one hand, he presumably thinks he has given so much to Putin that he can wangle a ceasefire from Russia. On the other, he wants those “raw earth” minerals from Ukraine which presumably involves US “operatives”, but not military personnel, on the ground in Ukraine.
Zelensky in turn wants tougher security guaranteed.
Seems like the only guarantee Trump is potentially offering is some kind of air cover “backstop” for European troops. Starmer and Macron are not willing to post troops without that backstop.
Remember folks, this is just to get to a ceasefire.
But the existence of US economic operatives, UK/JEF/French troops, and American air cover, perhaps answers the outstanding security question, since NATO was never viably on the table.
That would then just leave the actual borders, and prisoner exchange. Publicly at least, Putin is still sticking to his maximalist position.
Hopefully yesterday’s contretemps, as awful as it looked. is just a bend in the road.
... but I did.
- I'm assuming I'm on a budget.
- Save the world, then we'll balance the books. Can I recommend a tailor?
- I'll manage. You British don't have a monopoly on snobbery, you know.
- Well, not a monopoly. More of a controlling interest!
Ultimately his vanity is key but he’s surrounded by nutters who won’t tell him he isn’t getting a Nobel Peace Prize by treating Ukraine like this and Russia like that. Maybe a “leaked” internal memo from the Nobel committee deploring his position might help.
https://bsky.app/profile/peterstefanovic.bsky.social/post/3ljdjz5afx226
'You have full backing across the United Kingdom'
The last thing we need is an escalation of the conflict to bring in other powers and the idea of British and Polish troops shooting at Russians and where that could end isn't pleasant to contemplate.
As to whether NATO is "over", Trump has said he would stick to the obligations of Article 5 and as long as a scintilla of doubt remains, and, given his own parlous state, Putin won't get involved with NATO directly.
I do agree, absent American assistance, the rest of Europe has to provide as much materiel and logistical support to Kyiv as we can to enable the Ukrainians to not only hold the line but start pushing the Russians back - everything short of joining the fight with our own armed forces.
But what we are learning is that static, long term organisations will eventually fail and that we, as indvidual nations, cannot rely on anyone else to come and pull us out of the fire. We must do that ourselves, yes together, but as equals and realising that we will, at times have fundemental differences of opinion and outlook which means our shared arrangements have to be completely flexible.
Whether he has a staff ID and/or the code name Krasnov are details.
When you are at the top, the single most important thing is to get information that conflicts with your world view. Because the tendency in any organization is to tell the boss what he wants to hear, because that way lies advancement. The optimum strategy for you in the organization is sub-optimum for the organization as a whole.
Telling Trump that (a) the Ukrainians support Zelenskky, or (b) that he won't get a Nobel Peace prize would likely never reach him (because who wants to bring him bad news), and even if it did, cognitive dissonance would set in, and it would be ignored.
Trump is not going to change his mind on Ukraine. Therefore, Western Europe needs to decide whether to leave Ukraine to its fate, or whether it should step up.
Stepping up is incredibly risky. Allowing Russia to win by withholding aid is immoral, and likely just storing up problems for next time.
I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the lowest risk strategy is to drive Russia out of Ukraine. Maybe that can be achieved solely by giving Ukraine all the materiel she needs. Maybe it requires more. But the alternative is merely storing up more trouble for the future.
But it is undeniably the cae that reliance on long term organisations to keep us safe inevitably leads us to end up in a Maginot Line situation. We are seeing that now with the US and it is about time more people started realising it.
The two things aren’t really compatible.
Though if China invaded the west coast of America would Europe and Canada definitely send troops and arms and funds to the US to held them defeat the Chinese? At the moment debateable while the Trump administration is in power
It’s been conducting a hybrid war against Europe for a decade or more.
It is clearly a fascist, revanchist state, with designs on the Baltics and perhaps even the entire former Warsaw Bloc.
There are many signs that Trumponomkcs is faltering to say the least.
https://x.com/julianhjessop/status/1895911300825563340?s=61
I think it is really very simple: Trump comes from a time when Russia was the other Superpower. He cannot imagine how a small country like Ukraine could possibly win against them, and therefore they are behaving illogically in resisting. (Just as Canada and Greenland Denmark would be illogical to resist US aggression.)
Words will not change his mind. The older you get, the more severe cognitive dissonance is.
Therefore facts need to change.
And this is why Europe needs to step up.
Although I expect a kind of dead cat bounce in response to certain tax cuts this year.
Yesterday, Trump and Vance's treatment of Zelensky was significantly worse than Blackadder's of Baldric.
Russia has been quite happy to bribe our politicians, cut underseat communications cables and spread disinformation.
And we've just sat there and taken it.
I think the position that Russia constitutes no threat to Europe is patently absurd. And a Russia with control over a substantial proportion of Ukraine, and restored economic relations with the US would present a much larger future threat.
I’m also tending to your conclusion.
A maximalist “drive Russia out” might be a lot harder than (for example) reversing their advance, and creating a defensible border, though.
He promised people lower bills and tackling inflation. I suspect many reverse ferrets once the impact is of his economic policies bites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_of_influence
“Exactly” doesn’t really pertain.
The rumours of Labour’s demise are severely overestimated.
The US exported between $2 and $3 billion of goods to the USSR throughout the 1980s.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2009/N2682.pdf
The conspiracy theory went viral, with Republicans including US special envoy, Richard Grenell, spreading the baseless claim.
The claim suggests that they advised him to “stand strong” and be “tough” against president Donald Trump before the confrontation between Zelenskyy, Trump, and vice president JD Vance in the Oval Office took place.
Worth noting: The initial claim, posted by a pro-Trump author on social media, provided no source or evidence and was later acknowledged by herself as speculation."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/mar/01/live-european-leaders-rally-behind-zelenskyy-after-trump-vance-clash-updates
And Zelensky rocked up in combat fatigues.
And Vance was yesterday accusing Zelensky of peddling ‘propaganda’.
(By which he meant showing foreign visitors the massacre site in Bucha.)
More Sunak vs Cuthulu
I notice Electoral Calculus, in it's latest prediction, now has REF short (134 seats) of an overall majority for the first time.
But given recent developments could we be at Peak Reform?
They’re both too far up themselves to grasp the reference, but everyone else will get it.
And enjoy it.
I have been with my family today and just catching up on the news
Full marks to Starmer in embracing Zelenskyy so warmly in Downing Street and speaking for the nation our support for him and Ukraine
Also excellent that Zelenskyy meets the King tomorrow in a show of support for the beleaguered war leader
It seems the head of NATO and others are saying that bridges have to be repaired with Trump, which is no doubt true, but how and when that happens, if it happens is open conjecture
Anyway we must support Zelenskyy and Ukraine irrespective of the madmen in the White House
How anyone can vote for Farage is beyond me
I am looking forward to Reform winning a lot of council seats, and proving what they can do.
Bloomberg suggests Trump might consider meeting Zelenskyy again if the latter issues a full public apology to Trump.
I also had a long conversation with our son and his wife in Vancouver who are appalled at Trump but also recognize Canada has been taking the US for granted for far too long
They confirm that their politics is very uncertain but not impressed by Mark Carney
What the Democrats do is largely irrelevant
Apparently AP and Reuters were excluded.
As someone now unknown to enjoy a bust up yourself, what was your take on the Trump - Zelensky - Oval Office slanging match?
https://war.ukraine.ua/donate/
Just how low can some become
The Millwall goalkeeper tackle on the Crystal Palace forward was the most dangerous I have seen in over 70 years following football and a very serious head injury occurred to the Palace player who was treated on the pitch for 10 minutes before being taken directly to an ambulance and hospital
And the Millwall supporters response
'We hope you die"
I find it difficult even to type those words
The FA and Police have to take action
I get Millwall fans love their reputation of "no one likes us, we don't care" but for them to be chanting "let him die" when a player with a head injury is getting treatment is truly disgusting.
What's more shocking though is the FA saying that "let him die" chants aren't a breach of their regulations, but they're going to be investigating homophobic chants aimed at another player as they are. If that's the case, perhaps your regulations are a bit broken.
Westminster Voting Intention:
RFM: 27% (+3)
LAB: 26% (+1)
CON: 22% (-3)
LDM: 12% (-2)
GRN: 8% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)
Via @BMGResearch, 25-26 Feb.
Changes w/ 28-29 Jan.