US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
In this scenario the US companies could invest in occupied zones and Trump could justify removing sanctions. Like Gaza all they want is to exploit the opportunities the occupying forces present them. Basically sharing the spoils.
US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
Why would you choose one of the least successful precedents and think that people wouldn't notice?
There was an article a few weeks ago which said the American religious right view Israel as the model state for expanding state borders.
What the Russians and the Israeli religious right have in common is their belief that land-grabbing, for its own sake, is intelligent. Whereas a smaller, ethnically homogeneous, State, is always going to be more stable than one with a hostile ethnic minority.
That recent game on X which was who said it ‘The Nazis about the Jews’ or ‘The Israelis about the Palestinians’ was quite the eye opener.
Lebensraum at all costs.
And again, the Nazis were so stupid. Germany has difficulty feeding itself, but Germany worked out how to handle that, by using exports of manufactured goods to pay for imports of food. By 1900, Germany was the world's top manufacturer.
The Nazis' response was autarky, cutting back on exports and imports, driving the economy to bankruptcy, and attempting to pay for it all through plundering their neighbours.
US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
Why would you choose one of the least successful precedents and think that people wouldn't notice?
There was an article a few weeks ago which said the American religious right view Israel as the model state for expanding state borders.
What the Russians and the Israeli religious right have in common is their belief that land-grabbing, for its own sake, is intelligent. Whereas a smaller, ethnically homogeneous, State, is always going to be more stable than one with a hostile ethnic minority.
That recent game on X which was who said it ‘The Nazis about the Jews’ or ‘The Israelis about the Palestinians’ was quite the eye opener.
Lebensraum at all costs.
And again, the Nazis were so stupid. Germany has difficulty feeding itself, but Germany worked out how to handle that, by using exports of manufactured goods to pay for imports of food. By 1900, Germany was the world's top manufacturer.
The Nazis' response was autarky, cutting back on exports and imports, driving the economy to bankruptcy, and attempting to pay for it all through plundering their neighbours.
Alternatively, according to AfD leader Björn Höcke, Germany was attacked by the forces of globalisation in World War 2, because it couldn't be allowed to continue as a model successful 'anti-globalisation state'...
US and Russia ‘plan West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine’
Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff is said to support proposal revealed before president meets Putin in Alaska on Friday
Russia and the United States have discussed Israel’s occupation of the West Bank as a model for ending the war in Ukraine, The Times has been told.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
Why would you choose one of the least successful precedents and think that people wouldn't notice?
There was an article a few weeks ago which said the American religious right view Israel as the model state for expanding state borders.
It all seems to be shaping up to force Ukraine to either accept a terrible peace, or to reject it, and be blamed for continuing the war - and therefore responsible for everything Russia does to them, while the US punishes Ukraine by blocking support.
There's no peace deal coming out of this process because Trump can't (and is barely trying to) push Putin to a position that Ukraine could sign up to. So the war goes on it seems to me. But what do the US do then? Do they walk away? Perhaps we're approaching crux time where that question gets answered.
If the NU10k are so keen on rapid immigration to the UK, perhaps they should surrender their gold plated pensions to pay for the associated costs.
Not just the pension breaks; I mean the actual pensions....
You misunderstand the NU10K - they may pay some superficial obeisance to the nostrums of Islington home dining. But they have no belief in it. Any more than Paula Vennels really believes in kindness, godliness, compassion and humility.
Look at the government pivot on trans following the SC ruling. JKR Rowling will probably be the next Equalities Minister.
If/when The Done Thing flips to anti-immigrant, the NU10K will be leading the Special Tasks Groups hunting immigrants. On 6 figure salaries etc…. Obviously.
Yes, poor numbers for Labour but I think we know if any other party were in Government at this time their numbers would be as bad if not worse.
It's often said some elections are "bad ones to win" - 1992 being a good example - but 2024 would be right up there it seems. I'll be honest (and this seems a peculiarly London-centric view) - I don't think Starmer is doing too badly. At worst he's Continuity Sunak but big shifts in governance aren't easy - as has been said, there were probably only three really radical Governments in the 20th century - Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher.
In a globally interconnected world, doing something radical isn't easy and even within Britain one decision impacts on others. Cuts in public spending on the scale some here would seem to want don't end at the balance sheet - they would impact real people in their daily lives, perhaps not the individuals and their families urging the deep cuts but nonetheless.
Government is difficult especially at a time of weak economic growth - however you try to slice the cake someone complains about their share or lack of it. I do agree some of the initial ideas of the new Government were implemented in a hamfisted way - removing Winter Fuel Allowance from higher rate taxpayers while retaining it for those on basic rate would probably have been sellable. The "boats" defy all attempts at a solution for now though I suspect autumn and winter will slow things down a bit.
Cutting Peter's benefits to ensure Paul pays less tax isn't the answer and nor is raising Paul's taxes so Peter can keep all his benefits so it becomes dancing on a pinhead in terms of what you can and can't do.
It also becomes easier to look for scapegoats - blame the migrants, blame the scroungers, blame those with mental and physical challenges, blame those with long Covid, blame the last Government, blame this Government etc.
You can see the attraction of masterly inactivity and the destiny of the poor can as it gets propelled once more down the road. You can also see why those peddling "easy answers" get traction.
The problem I see it is that Starmer is built for a sort of managerial role when the country doesn’t need it. He might have been a decently average (or even average to good) PM conceivably, in 2015, or in the 1960s, or in the John Major role. He just isn’t the “cometh the hour” person.
The Atlees, Thatchers, Asquiths of this world are rare but they’re precisely what we need right now - a purpose, a radical sense of mission, and a party firmly behind them. Farage play-acts as one of those people, but isnt the real deal.
Ah, yes, the "strong" leader. The "radical" leader. It's seductive I know to think all our problems could be dealt with by such an individual - we could vote them in and then they would lead us from the valley of the shadow to the sunlit uplands...
Blah, blah, blah - that's how authoritarianism starts. I'd rather our imperfect, bumbling democracy than a "strong" leader. The truth probably is we could solve a lot of our problems ourselves with some changes in our personal behaviour and within our communities - that would be really radical.
The problem with top-down solutions is they create bottom-up problems. Somebody suggested yesterday it was all the fault of "fatties" as he called them and said everyone who was overweight should be given free Mounjaro. Well, setting aside the economics, the practicalities and the legalities (but they aren't that individual's strong suit), Mounjaro isn't side effect free as I know from a friend who has used it.
The other consequence is if you have a significant portion (sorry) of the population on appetite suppressing drugs, what happens to the catering and hospitality industries? Do the non-"fatties" have to become "fatties" in order to keep every cafe and restaurant from my cafe in the Barking Road to the top three Michelin star eaterie going? Will we see Gordon Ramsey begging on the streets as his restaurant empire collapses from lack of demand?
The claim that radical change in a democracy is dictatorship or something is an old, old cry.
The problem is that, in many areas, the government is not doing much, if anything.
On health in the community - why not some trials? Pick an area. Vitality style rewards for health indicators. You wouldn’t need legislation for that.
£100 off income tax (or added to your UC or State Pension) if you have a healthy BMI or can run 5K in less than 30 minutes.
First, we know BMI isn't the be all and end all as a measure of health. Second, physical exercise tests - seriously? Third, £100 - a lot of people will see it as not worth the effort (make it £10,000 a year and you;d get more takers).
Tough. The NHS is going to collapse under the weight of the population and we already have the classic insurance issues of moral hazard and adverse selection.
Health inequality is enormous. We have a group of well paid, healthy and active people paying a huge amount of tax for a service they rarely use because it's been overwhelmed by the old and inactive.
That's completely unsustainable, a breach of the social contract. And this is coming from someone who is instinctively generous with government support for those who need it.
Most of the redistribution done by the NHS is over time. If you're healthy and active, you are paying for your future care more than you are paying for inactive others'. Even if you eat well and do lots of physical activity, you're going to die at some point and most of the average person's health costs are at the end of life.
Now, that doesn't argue against the importance of health promotion. Health promotion is very cost effective. We should be doing more to encourage physical activity and healthy diets. What's the best way of doing that? Giving people £100 for being fit, or spending £4 billion on council gyms and good quality health promotion apps?
If we were paying for our future care that would be fine. But we aren't, are we?
We aren't even paying for current care requirements.
The whole Ponzi scheme is collapsing and nobody wants to admit it.
We pay for current old people's care, and when we're old, a younger generation will pay for our care. This is not a Ponzi scheme. (Calling it a Ponzi scheme is one of the laziest lines in politics.) The country is currently running a deficit, but talk of "collapsing" is hyperbole.
In the 47 years that I paid NI I never once objected to paying it. My parents and grandparents would have benefited from my contributions. Now my children and grandchildren are paying and I am benefiting. There are some utterly selfish and small minded scrooges on PB.
The problem is that the system of “current tax payers pay for the retired” only produces generous results with few retired and lots of taxpayers.
How to fix that?
To a certain extent, it can't be fixed. Something unpleasant has to happen to account for the change in demographics. Broadly speaking there are three options.
1. Increase the proportion of national income spent on the retired to the detriment of everyone and everything else. This is the main part of the status quo.
2. Reduce the number of retired - by increasing the retirement age. This is being done a bit, though only enough to reduce the rate of increase in the number of retired.
3. Reduce the amount spent on each retired person. The triple lock is the reverse of this.
The boring answer is that we should probably do a mixture of all three, but it's tempting to come up with a more radical answer, such as fixing the percentage of GDP spent, and allowing everyone to choose their own balance between how much money each month they receive for their pension vs how late they wait to receive it.
You miss all the deadbeats living the high life on benefits. Cut benefits by 10% minimum , , cut public service excess bagggage, reduce public Final salary pensions.
Fashion accessories chain Claire's is on the brink of collapse after the retailer said it will appoint administrators in the UK and Ireland, putting 2,150 jobs at risk.
Comments
NEW THREAD