So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
What an utter fool you are.
Russia does everything it does - not just last night, but all of the political interference in western democracies, the attacks on Ukraine, Georgia etc - and you accuse *us* of being bellicose.
I sometimes wonder what Russia would have to do before some idiots say: "Okay, Putin's gone a little too far..."
A hell of a lot more than flying a few drones over Poland. A 100 division armoured invasion towards Warsaw would do it but are we seeing that? No.
Yet there are people on here openly advocating some sort of retaliatory strike into Russia - seriously?
And you accuse ME of ridiculing the term "beliicose".
Look at everything Russia has been doing - and not just in Ukraine.
And when that 100 divisions head towards Warsaw, you'd just be saying: "Well, that's Poland fucked. There's nothing we can do..."
Our attitude towards Putin over the last near-two decades - since Georgia in 2008 - is one of utter appeasement.
The Russian "Liberal Democrats" also believe in Russian irredentism
The Russian, British and Japanese Liberal Democrats are very different to each other. The Belarus Liberal Democrats are like the Russians. The Slovenian Liberal Democrats were quite like the British lot, but have ceased to exist. You could say the same about the former Italian Liberal Democrats. The Croatian Liberal Democrats are like the British lot, as are the German Liberal Democrats.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
It is everyone else.
The rest of the members (with the possible exception of Hungary) have a very strong shared interest in containing Russia - and the economic and military capacity to do so. All they lack currently is the determination.
If the US doesn't like it, we can label it something other than NATO.
Whether Phillipson, Powell or whoever wins the Labour deputy leadership it is basically a non job.
The winner will not be Deputy PM, that will still be Lammy who replaced Rayner in the role, nor will they even be Labour Party chair.
So as Blunkett said what exactly is the point of being Labour Deputy Leader in government other than a cheerleader for members and the provinces?
I suspect that there is a job to be done; represent the members to the higher echelons of power. In this situation I suspect Powell would be a better choice, although Phillipson, it might be argued, can put the case in Cabinet.
The best job description I have heard is to represent the membership by speaking plainly inside the circle of trust, whilst not being publicly embarrassing or factional.
The same person said that they thought that Angela Rayner and done that, and that Emily Thornberry would be a good candidate.
That was from someone who is not Labour (actually left of current Labour) but wants a progressive Govt.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
But it's my understanding that in things like key weaponry, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, it's America and American capabilities that makes NATO what it is.
There are key capability gaps, yes, and also a general lack of mass.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
But it's my understanding that in things like key weaponry, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, it's America and American capabilities that makes NATO what it is.
NATO is quite integrated and the US is the biggest military power in NATO, so there is a tendency to rely on the US for certain functions (e.g., spy satellites), but I think you are underestimating the rest of NATO. OK, maybe Iceland and Montenegro aren't bringing much to the party, but countries like the UK, France, Italy, Germany and Poland all have significant military forces.
Here's a list of countries by military spending (in billions of dollars) in 2024:
1 United States 968.0 NATO 2 China 235.0 3 Russia 145.9 4 Germany 86.0 NATO 5 United Kingdom 81.1 NATO 6 India 74.4 7 Saudi Arabia 71.7 8 France 64.0 NATO 9 Japan 53.0 10 South Korea 43.9 11 Australia 36.4 12 Italy 35.2 NATO 13 Israel 33.7 14 Ukraine 28.4 15 Poland 28.4 NATO 16 Canada 27.0 NATO 17 Brazil 24.4 18 Netherlands 23.6 NATO 19 United Arab Emirates 22.3 20 Algeria 21.4
... and there are 4 more NATO countries in 21-30. NATO without the US is the second biggest spender in the world.
But, yes, if the US withdrew from NATO, the other countries would have to re-configure what they do.
Christ alive, Tony Robinson/Baldrick pimping his new book on Today about Alfred the Great says that people think there is a pure line of Englishness but that Alfred made up this idea of Englishness Alfred and “his mates” were all German and then they go on to discuss the importance of accuracy.
Only a minority of idiots think that the English have some purebred status and Alfred and his mates weren’t German.
........every schoolboy knows that Alfred is Adolf in German
Adolf is Adolph in German.
Alfred is Alfred in German.
Apart from that, good point.
(I know I went to Millfield but did you think I was being serious?)
(I'm not commenting beyond noting that it seems quite centralised, as I have only occasionally dipped into these.)
Or in other words what Nigel says goes and if you dislike it, there is the door
I expect it is not that black and white, and I would welcome comment - but Councillors who cross him get ejected notably quickly.
The point I noted was that Local Branches of Reform are barred from having bank accounts, and I don't know what others parties do - other than Lib Dem parties do have bank accounts but they seem to be held outside the party structures (liability reasons, I presume).
Christ alive, Tony Robinson/Baldrick pimping his new book on Today about Alfred the Great says that people think there is a pure line of Englishness but that Alfred made up this idea of Englishness Alfred and “his mates” were all German and then they go on to discuss the importance of accuracy.
Only a minority of idiots think that the English have some purebred status and Alfred and his mates weren’t German.
........every schoolboy knows that Alfred is Adolf in German
Adolf is Adolph in German.
Alfred is Alfred in German.
Apart from that, good point.
(I know I went to Millfield but did you think I was being serious?)
'Mandelson stayed in Epstein's New York home when Epstein was in prison'
I think you have got this BigG. Mandy is toast. Curries all 'round.
The interesting question is why people thought Mandelson's ambassadorship would end any other way.
He has shown staggeringly poor judgement on so many previous occasions and is probably the most scandal-prone British politician of the last generation, most traceable in some way to a love of sucking up to the rich and famous. His wikipedia page is a long list of such incidents, unrelieved by any achievements of note. Yet somehow, despite all the disasters and corruption, and never having done much, he keeps getting appointed to important and prestigious jobs.
As such he is perhaps the perfect embodiment of our incestuous and failing political class. So perhaps I've just answered my own question.
That's correct on his personal failings (and he should resign for this) but it's churlish to deny his talents as a fixer, organiser and administrator. He's not your standard establishment mediocrity by any means.
Yeah, he gets away with it because he's such a talented operator. You may have noticed that amid the general clusterfuck of Trump's approach to international relations the UK has tended to come out relatively unscathed. I would be surprised if Mandelson were not responsible for much of that. Equally, I struggle to see him surviving the Epstein scandal - although as it won't bring down Trump it would arguably be unfair for Mandy to have to fall on his sword. AIUI Trump's relationship with Epstein was a far closer one.
Yes, the 'drawing' and accompanying words are damningly informative about Trump/Epstein. In my dreams (but sadly only there) it ruins him.
Maybe Mandy was picked because of his and Trump’s closeness to Epstein
Sky have a big programme on Immigration tonight hosted by Trevor Phillips and Sam Coates has a yougov poll showing 70% think immigration is too high
I'm surprised it's only 70% - I'd expect it to be higher. There's a pretty broad consensus, including among most parts of the left, that immigration has been too high over the last few years, so it's hardly a revelation. Legal immigration is falling pretty rapidly now, although that will take time to enter the public consciousness. Of course many people see small boat crossings, a small percentage of the total, as a proxy for immigration - so the challenge for the government is both to counter that perception and to reduce such crossings as far as possible.
I think the key question is how quickly the current large fall in immigration does enter the public consciousness. Should Labour be doing more to get that message out? The 2024 figure is less than half the 2022 figure, but people might think the 2024 figure is still relatively high. I presume the 2025 figure will be lower than the 2024 figure.
The reduction is entirely due to Sunak's changes and may well come down further
However, what you are underestimating is that the public don't just want the boats stopped, but a growing number want all immigration stopped
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
NATO without America is still the collective self-defence of dozens of democracies that would mostly struggle to defend themselves individually.
In some ways NATO is even more important without America.
Yes, in essence. The challenge is to build this new entity, organisationally, financially, politically and militarily. It's a huge task.
Christ alive, Tony Robinson/Baldrick pimping his new book on Today about Alfred the Great says that people think there is a pure line of Englishness but that Alfred made up this idea of Englishness Alfred and “his mates” were all German and then they go on to discuss the importance of accuracy.
Only a minority of idiots think that the English have some purebred status and Alfred and his mates weren’t German.
........every schoolboy knows that Alfred is Adolf in German
NATO without the US has more main battle tanks than the US, or indeed any other country except Russia, and the count for Russia is uncertain and changes quickly!
NATO without the US has more nuclear submarines than anyone except the US and Russia.
Sky have a big programme on Immigration tonight hosted by Trevor Phillips and Sam Coates has a yougov poll showing 70% think immigration is too high
I'm surprised it's only 70% - I'd expect it to be higher. There's a pretty broad consensus, including among most parts of the left, that immigration has been too high over the last few years, so it's hardly a revelation. Legal immigration is falling pretty rapidly now, although that will take time to enter the public consciousness. Of course many people see small boat crossings, a small percentage of the total, as a proxy for immigration - so the challenge for the government is both to counter that perception and to reduce such crossings as far as possible.
I think the key question is how quickly the current large fall in immigration does enter the public consciousness. Should Labour be doing more to get that message out? The 2024 figure is less than half the 2022 figure, but people might think the 2024 figure is still relatively high. I presume the 2025 figure will be lower than the 2024 figure.
The reduction is entirely due to Sunak's changes and may well come down further
However, what you are underestimating is that the public don't just want the boats stopped, but a growing number want all immigration stopped
The public was repeatedly promised net migration "in the tens of thousands". And is still waiting for that promise to be fulfilled.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
But it's my understanding that in things like key weaponry, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, it's America and American capabilities that makes NATO what it is.
That need not be the case. Europe has its own AEW capability; several different military aircraft manufacturers; ditto missile manufactures; ditto armoured vehicles.
Trump has clearly demonstrated that over reliance on US kit represents a strategic risk. We should take more of an Israeli attitude to buying from the US: anything we don't have full and unrestricted control over shouldn't be an option.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
But it's my understanding that in things like key weaponry, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, it's America and American capabilities that makes NATO what it is.
NATO is quite integrated and the US is the biggest military power in NATO, so there is a tendency to rely on the US for certain functions (e.g., spy satellites), but I think you are underestimating the rest of NATO. OK, maybe Iceland and Montenegro aren't bringing much to the party, but countries like the UK, France, Italy, Germany and Poland all have significant military forces.
Here's a list of countries by military spending (in billions of dollars) in 2024:
1 United States 968.0 NATO 2 China 235.0 3 Russia 145.9 4 Germany 86.0 NATO 5 United Kingdom 81.1 NATO 6 India 74.4 7 Saudi Arabia 71.7 8 France 64.0 NATO 9 Japan 53.0 10 South Korea 43.9 11 Australia 36.4 12 Italy 35.2 NATO 13 Israel 33.7 14 Ukraine 28.4 15 Poland 28.4 NATO 16 Canada 27.0 NATO 17 Brazil 24.4 18 Netherlands 23.6 NATO 19 United Arab Emirates 22.3 20 Algeria 21.4
... and there are 4 more NATO countries in 21-30. NATO without the US is the second biggest spender in the world.
But, yes, if the US withdrew from NATO, the other countries would have to re-configure what they do.
It's also a slightly questionable comparison, because most of US defence spending is not on NATO forces, there is Military PPP - where other countries get a bit more bang for the buck (UK, Canada) to ~1.7x as much (Italy, Poland), to more than double *, and the Usonians REALLY do gold plating, inefficiency, corruption and waste like nobody else.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
NATO without America is still the collective self-defence of dozens of democracies that would mostly struggle to defend themselves individually.
In some ways NATO is even more important without America.
Yes, in essence. The challenge is to build this new entity, organisationally, financially, politically and militarily. It's a huge task.
You are correct but unfortunately it sort of needed the big bully of the US in it otherwise it will just be endless interests played off against each other with no dominant “leader”.
It was fairly recent where someone posted on here how the French were kicking off about a joint fighter project demanding leadership and the majority of work on it and it’s exactly that sort of shit that stops a well integrated and cooperative new organisation. France will want leadership as a nuclear power, Germany by virtue of being the richest and largest, Poland by having the biggest army and closest proximity.
If all the European countries could agree on buying the same aircraft, the same ships, subs, missiles and guns then it would get huge economies of scale and integration but will never happen because national interests.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
It is everyone else.
The rest of the members (with the possible exception of Hungary) have a very strong shared interest in containing Russia - and the economic and military capacity to do so. All they lack currently is the determination.
If the US doesn't like it, we can label it something other than NATO.
Perhaps we should - although the title is less important than the content obviously.
What about the NATO nuclear deterrent angle though? Isn't that very heavily American?
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
NATO without America is still the collective self-defence of dozens of democracies that would mostly struggle to defend themselves individually.
In some ways NATO is even more important without America.
Yes, in essence. The challenge is to build this new entity, organisationally, financially, politically and militarily. It's a huge task.
I think that organisationally there's been quite a lot of work to prepare for a NATO either without the US, or with a reluctant US. And there are also structures that have been created in parallel to NATO like JEF.
The problematic bit is the capability gaps - satellites, intelligence, logistics, SEAD/DEAD - because filling those will be very expensive and not fast.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
It is everyone else.
The rest of the members (with the possible exception of Hungary) have a very strong shared interest in containing Russia - and the economic and military capacity to do so. All they lack currently is the determination.
If the US doesn't like it, we can label it something other than NATO.
Perhaps we should - although the title is less important than the content obviously.
What about the NATO nuclear deterrent angle though? Isn't that very heavily American?
The French have stepped forward to offer their nuclear deterrent for Europe, presumably so that countries like Poland don't feel compelled to develop their own nuclear deterrent.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
But it's my understanding that in things like key weaponry, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, it's America and American capabilities that makes NATO what it is.
That need not be the case. Europe has its own AEW capability; several different military aircraft manufacturers; ditto missile manufactures; ditto armoured vehicles.
Trump has clearly demonstrated that over reliance on US kit represents a strategic risk. We should take more of an Israeli attitude to buying from the US: anything we don't have full and unrestricted control over shouldn't be an option.
Obvious comment, I know, but this should have started ages ago rather than waiting for the US to elect a hostile cowboy president. But things rarely happen that way, do they. When you have a situation that works for you, you just carry on with it until something forces you to change.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
NATO without America is still the collective self-defence of dozens of democracies that would mostly struggle to defend themselves individually.
In some ways NATO is even more important without America.
Yes, in essence. The challenge is to build this new entity, organisationally, financially, politically and militarily. It's a huge task.
You are correct but unfortunately it sort of needed the big bully of the US in it otherwise it will just be endless interests played off against each other with no dominant “leader”.
It was fairly recent where someone posted on here how the French were kicking off about a joint fighter project demanding leadership and the majority of work on it and it’s exactly that sort of shit that stops a well integrated and cooperative new organisation. France will want leadership as a nuclear power, Germany by virtue of being the richest and largest, Poland by having the biggest army and closest proximity.
If all the European countries could agree on buying the same aircraft, the same ships, subs, missiles and guns then it would get huge economies of scale and integration but will never happen because national interests.
This is a big part of it, the intra-continent politics. Hopefully "necessity is the mother of invention" will make itself felt in the rooms and corridors.
Christ alive, Tony Robinson/Baldrick pimping his new book on Today about Alfred the Great says that people think there is a pure line of Englishness but that Alfred made up this idea of Englishness Alfred and “his mates” were all German and then they go on to discuss the importance of accuracy.
Only a minority of idiots think that the English have some purebred status and Alfred and his mates weren’t German.
GermanIC thiough is entirely correct, intermarriage aside. Presumably the -ic was lost somewhere along the line.
The Angles and Saxons had been in England since the 5th century. By Alfred's time that's 300 years given or take some decades. Many, many generations. They would have felt that this country was there's as much as any true born Englishman today. I guess he's making a classic luvvy point and falling rather wide of the mark.
Agreed: I'd also add: 1) Some studies have suggested that the east of Great Britain has been Germanic in language and genetics for rather longer than that even. 2) While pre-Viking Anglo-Saxons wouldn't have considered themselves as one nation - because the concept of a nation then was quite different, and depended much more on loyalty to a given lord rather than shared culture - they would certainly have recognised cultural (and, importantly, religious) affiliations with other Anglo-Saxons (which were not necessarily shared with the British - i.e. those who spoke Welsh and followed the Celtic church, nor with the Vikings, who spoke Scandinavian languages and were pagan). 3) The process of gradually removing the viking rulers from the east and north of modern-day England was a nation-building event: Englishness came to be defined by it. This is not unique to England: there are countless examples of nation-building in opposition to what a nation is not.
Essentially: Tony Robinson's point is trite - a barb in disguise as a serious point.
Essentially much of South East and Eastern England is genetically quite homogeneous. Devon and Cornwall are much more distinct as are the Welsh Marches. Northumbria and Cumbria have greater ties to Scotland.
Christ alive, Tony Robinson/Baldrick pimping his new book on Today about Alfred the Great says that people think there is a pure line of Englishness but that Alfred made up this idea of Englishness Alfred and “his mates” were all German and then they go on to discuss the importance of accuracy.
Only a minority of idiots think that the English have some purebred status and Alfred and his mates weren’t German.
GermanIC thiough is entirely correct, intermarriage aside. Presumably the -ic was lost somewhere along the line.
The Angles and Saxons had been in England since the 5th century. By Alfred's time that's 300 years given or take some decades. Many, many generations. They would have felt that this country was there's as much as any true born Englishman today. I guess he's making a classic luvvy point and falling rather wide of the mark.
Agreed: I'd also add: 1) Some studies have suggested that the east of Great Britain has been Germanic in language and genetics for rather longer than that even. 2) While pre-Viking Anglo-Saxons wouldn't have considered themselves as one nation - because the concept of a nation then was quite different, and depended much more on loyalty to a given lord rather than shared culture - they would certainly have recognised cultural (and, importantly, religious) affiliations with other Anglo-Saxons (which were not necessarily shared with the British - i.e. those who spoke Welsh and followed the Celtic church, nor with the Vikings, who spoke Scandinavian languages and were pagan). 3) The process of gradually removing the viking rulers from the east and north of modern-day England was a nation-building event: Englishness came to be defined by it. This is not unique to England: there are countless examples of nation-building in opposition to what a nation is not.
Essentially: Tony Robinson's point is trite - a barb in disguise as a serious point.
Essentially much of South East and Eastern England is genetically quite homogeneous. Devon and Cornwall are much more distinct as are the Welsh Marches. Northumbria and Cumbria have greater ties to Scotland.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
It is everyone else.
The rest of the members (with the possible exception of Hungary) have a very strong shared interest in containing Russia - and the economic and military capacity to do so. All they lack currently is the determination.
If the US doesn't like it, we can label it something other than NATO.
Perhaps we should - although the title is less important than the content obviously.
What about the NATO nuclear deterrent angle though? Isn't that very heavily American?
The French have stepped forward to offer their nuclear deterrent for Europe, presumably so that countries like Poland don't feel compelled to develop their own nuclear deterrent.
They haven’t done that at all
Macron made some waffly remarks about the French deterrent having a “European dimension” which had macron’s usual purpose - indeed the usual purpose of all French governments - of making France sound important and grand and the leader of Europe, but without actually committing anything in writing, or spending any money because France is broke
The poles would be fools to rely on one macron speech. They aren’t fools, they won’t, which is why they still want America onside if at all possible
In the medium term Europe as a whole needs to develop a sizeable nuclear force (and this might include the UK, to make sure ours is properly independent)
Europe has to rediscover a martial spirit or we will be conquered. Same goes for our borders
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
But it's my understanding that in things like key weaponry, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, it's America and American capabilities that makes NATO what it is.
That need not be the case. Europe has its own AEW capability; several different military aircraft manufacturers; ditto missile manufactures; ditto armoured vehicles.
Trump has clearly demonstrated that over reliance on US kit represents a strategic risk. We should take more of an Israeli attitude to buying from the US: anything we don't have full and unrestricted control over shouldn't be an option.
Obvious comment, I know, but this should have started ages ago rather than waiting for the US to elect a hostile cowboy president. But things rarely happen that way, do they. When you have a situation that works for you, you just carry on with it until something forces you to change.
The west has been in denial for decades. We could not see a threat that required a large military force, partly because it was convenient. China was relatively friendly, and provided us with loads of plastic crud. Russia was giving us oodles of cheap oil and gas. Who else was there that would require a Cold War style military?
The peace dividend we have been spending since the early 1990s ignored one simple fact; that countries can turn from friendly to foe within a few years. In WW1 Japan was firmly aligned with the UK; twenty years later we were enemies.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
It is everyone else.
The rest of the members (with the possible exception of Hungary) have a very strong shared interest in containing Russia - and the economic and military capacity to do so. All they lack currently is the determination.
If the US doesn't like it, we can label it something other than NATO.
I wonder if Mr Trump will note that the Israeli attack on Qatar is one of the first instances of how it will be in the new world he and Maga are trying to create.
I wonder if Mr Trump will note that the Israeli attack on Qatar is one of the first instances of how it will be in the new world he and Maga are trying to create.
Until the first bomb drops on an American, he won't care. Even then he might not care much
I wrote about Trump’s comments trivializing domestic violence, and tried to chart the parallels between his own theory of governance and the logic of abusers.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
NATO without America is still the collective self-defence of dozens of democracies that would mostly struggle to defend themselves individually.
In some ways NATO is even more important without America.
Yes, in essence. The challenge is to build this new entity, organisationally, financially, politically and militarily. It's a huge task.
You are correct but unfortunately it sort of needed the big bully of the US in it otherwise it will just be endless interests played off against each other with no dominant “leader”.
It was fairly recent where someone posted on here how the French were kicking off about a joint fighter project demanding leadership and the majority of work on it and it’s exactly that sort of shit that stops a well integrated and cooperative new organisation. France will want leadership as a nuclear power, Germany by virtue of being the richest and largest, Poland by having the biggest army and closest proximity.
If all the European countries could agree on buying the same aircraft, the same ships, subs, missiles and guns then it would get huge economies of scale and integration but will never happen because national interests.
That won't happen any time soon, owing to national interests, but there's already quite a large amount of integration. (See, for example, MBDA, or the multiple deals Thales has with other European and S Korean defence manufacturers. Or the various joint programs BAE or Leonardo, or Rheinmetal have.)
On the next generation fighter in particular France looks to be going its own way, as Germany wasn't offered more than a derisory share of the program.
The UK consortium is also going ahead, as it's now closed off access to any further partners at this stage (probably sensible as the politicking could otherwise go on for a long time). Official speaking at #DSEI2025 today confirmed that the #GCAP programme is presently closed to additional partners, though later manufacturing opportunities for customers beyond Italy, Japan, and the UK "are conceivable". https://x.com/GarethJennings3/status/1965479718117146953
Germany will probably end up buying into one or other of the two programs at the manufacturing stage.
Europe has its own GPS (Galileo now looks like something of an insurance policy rather than a waste of money), and some interesting new synthetic aperture radar satellite capability.
It's not perfect, but it represents a far greater potential capacity than Russia possesses.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
(Snip)
You are falling into the trap of calling our potential response a 'massive escalation', whilst seeming to ignore what the Russians did last night was itself a 'massive escalation'.
And we see this time and time again: in the minds of some, the Russians are allowed to escalate, and we are not.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
It is everyone else.
The rest of the members (with the possible exception of Hungary) have a very strong shared interest in containing Russia - and the economic and military capacity to do so. All they lack currently is the determination.
If the US doesn't like it, we can label it something other than NATO.
Perhaps we should - although the title is less important than the content obviously.
What about the NATO nuclear deterrent angle though? Isn't that very heavily American?
The French have stepped forward to offer their nuclear deterrent for Europe, presumably so that countries like Poland don't feel compelled to develop their own nuclear deterrent.
I saw that, yes. Perhaps that's sufficient, I don't know. It's presumably not of the scale and power of the US's but I've never quite understood the point of having enough to "blow up XYZ a thousand times over".
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
NATO without America is still the collective self-defence of dozens of democracies that would mostly struggle to defend themselves individually.
In some ways NATO is even more important without America.
Yes, in essence. The challenge is to build this new entity, organisationally, financially, politically and militarily. It's a huge task.
I think that organisationally there's been quite a lot of work to prepare for a NATO either without the US, or with a reluctant US. And there are also structures that have been created in parallel to NATO like JEF.
The problematic bit is the capability gaps - satellites, intelligence, logistics, SEAD/DEAD - because filling those will be very expensive and not fast.
Ukraine has recently demonstrated that it can field very effective SEAD capacity against Russian assets, with its very limited resources. We should be paying attention.
Obviously we don't have the US logistics capacity, but purely in the context of Europe, we don't need to replicate anything like it.
The biggest single gap is perhaps our complete lack of a reusable launch vehicle.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
It is everyone else.
The rest of the members (with the possible exception of Hungary) have a very strong shared interest in containing Russia - and the economic and military capacity to do so. All they lack currently is the determination.
If the US doesn't like it, we can label it something other than NATO.
Perhaps we should - although the title is less important than the content obviously.
What about the NATO nuclear deterrent angle though? Isn't that very heavily American?
The French have stepped forward to offer their nuclear deterrent for Europe, presumably so that countries like Poland don't feel compelled to develop their own nuclear deterrent.
They haven’t done that at all
Macron made some waffly remarks about the French deterrent having a “European dimension” which had macron’s usual purpose - indeed the usual purpose of all French governments - of making France sound important and grand and the leader of Europe, but without actually committing anything in writing, or spending any money because France is broke
The poles would be fools to rely on one macron speech. They aren’t fools, they won’t, which is why they still want America onside if at all possible
In the medium term Europe as a whole needs to develop a sizeable nuclear force (and this might include the UK, to make sure ours is properly independent)
Europe has to rediscover a martial spirit or we will be conquered. Same goes for our borders
I won’t be surprised if the “ European dimension” the French are thinking of with regard to their nukes is that the rest of Europe has to start paying towards the upkeep and increase but that French fingers (sounds like some Bonne Maman biscuit) decide if and when they could be used.
In a way it wouldn’t be a bad thing if Europe contributed to the nuclear deterrent of France and the UK but there would have to be a very tricky negotiation on control and ultimately it would be unusable due to any vetoes or voting rights of other contributors so would never happen.
An interesting issue around traffic lights which I have not had to consider.
Drivers going through a red light then stopping at the repeater, blocking the way through for others. The repeater does not have a stop line, so should they stop?
(There's also something here about over-complicated junctions.)
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
"America’s left cannot exploit Trump’s failures The president’s genius is to keep pushing the Democrats into a reactive defence of the status quo Edward Luce" (£)
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
NATO without America is still the collective self-defence of dozens of democracies that would mostly struggle to defend themselves individually.
In some ways NATO is even more important without America.
Yes, in essence. The challenge is to build this new entity, organisationally, financially, politically and militarily. It's a huge task.
You are correct but unfortunately it sort of needed the big bully of the US in it otherwise it will just be endless interests played off against each other with no dominant “leader”.
It was fairly recent where someone posted on here how the French were kicking off about a joint fighter project demanding leadership and the majority of work on it and it’s exactly that sort of shit that stops a well integrated and cooperative new organisation. France will want leadership as a nuclear power, Germany by virtue of being the richest and largest, Poland by having the biggest army and closest proximity.
If all the European countries could agree on buying the same aircraft, the same ships, subs, missiles and guns then it would get huge economies of scale and integration but will never happen because national interests.
That won't happen any time soon, owing to national interests, but there's already quite a large amount of integration. (See, for example, MBDA, or the multiple deals Thales has with other European and S Korean defence manufacturers. Or the various joint programs BAE or Leonardo, or Rheinmetal have.)
On the next generation fighter in particular France looks to be going its own way, as Germany wasn't offered more than a derisory share of the program.
The UK consortium is also going ahead, as it's now closed off access to any further partners at this stage (probably sensible as the politicking could otherwise go on for a long time). Official speaking at #DSEI2025 today confirmed that the #GCAP programme is presently closed to additional partners, though later manufacturing opportunities for customers beyond Italy, Japan, and the UK "are conceivable". https://x.com/GarethJennings3/status/1965479718117146953
Germany will probably end up buying into one or other of the two programs at the manufacturing stage.
Europe has its own GPS (Galileo now looks like something of an insurance policy rather than a waste of money), and some interesting new synthetic aperture radar satellite capability.
It's not perfect, but it represents a far greater potential capacity than Russia possesses.
Another gap (which Ukraine could fill).
It is difficult to overstate what an industry-policy failure it is for the EU and wider Europe to have enticed PBS Group to invest in the United States rather than scale up production in Europe.
(Low cost) Jet engine production is one of Europe’s major bottlenecks for rearmament in the missile domain. One of the few manufacturers shifting a substantial share of its future business abroad is extremely bad news. https://x.com/FRHoffmann1/status/1965368845394141496
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
(Snip)
You are falling into the trap of calling our potential response a 'massive escalation', whilst seeming to ignore what the Russians did last night was itself a 'massive escalation'.
And we see this time and time again: in the minds of some, the Russians are allowed to escalate, and we are not.
It's time we did so.
We should match not escalate
That's not the way Putin operates. He calls anything we do an escalation. Therefore he would use just matching his actions as a reason to escalate further. After all, we just escalated.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
It is everyone else.
The rest of the members (with the possible exception of Hungary) have a very strong shared interest in containing Russia - and the economic and military capacity to do so. All they lack currently is the determination.
If the US doesn't like it, we can label it something other than NATO.
Perhaps we should - although the title is less important than the content obviously.
What about the NATO nuclear deterrent angle though? Isn't that very heavily American?
The French have stepped forward to offer their nuclear deterrent for Europe, presumably so that countries like Poland don't feel compelled to develop their own nuclear deterrent.
I saw that, yes. Perhaps that's sufficient, I don't know. It's presumably not of the scale and power of the US's but I've never quite understood the point of having enough to "blow up XYZ a thousand times over".
It's so they can lose 97% of it and still be able to retaliate. And so that the opposition knows that.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
It is everyone else.
The rest of the members (with the possible exception of Hungary) have a very strong shared interest in containing Russia - and the economic and military capacity to do so. All they lack currently is the determination.
If the US doesn't like it, we can label it something other than NATO.
Perhaps we should - although the title is less important than the content obviously.
What about the NATO nuclear deterrent angle though? Isn't that very heavily American?
The French have stepped forward to offer their nuclear deterrent for Europe, presumably so that countries like Poland don't feel compelled to develop their own nuclear deterrent.
They haven’t done that at all
Macron made some waffly remarks about the French deterrent having a “European dimension” which had macron’s usual purpose - indeed the usual purpose of all French governments - of making France sound important and grand and the leader of Europe, but without actually committing anything in writing, or spending any money because France is broke
The poles would be fools to rely on one macron speech. They aren’t fools, they won’t, which is why they still want America onside if at all possible
In the medium term Europe as a whole needs to develop a sizeable nuclear force (and this might include the UK, to make sure ours is properly independent)
Europe has to rediscover a martial spirit or we will be conquered. Same goes for our borders
I won’t be surprised if the “ European dimension” the French are thinking of with regard to their nukes is that the rest of Europe has to start paying towards the upkeep and increase but that French fingers (sounds like some Bonne Maman biscuit) decide if and when they could be used.
In a way it wouldn’t be a bad thing if Europe contributed to the nuclear deterrent of France and the UK but there would have to be a very tricky negotiation on control and ultimately it would be unusable due to any vetoes or voting rights of other contributors so would never happen.
… and the Poles are looking more and more at domestic nuclear power stations.
EDIT: guess what modular nukes (latest interest in Poland) are fuelled with?
Europe needs to stop acting as if it couldn’t cope without the US . This just emboldens Russia who know their gimp in the WH wouldn’t defend another NATO country .
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
(Snip)
You are falling into the trap of calling our potential response a 'massive escalation', whilst seeming to ignore what the Russians did last night was itself a 'massive escalation'.
And we see this time and time again: in the minds of some, the Russians are allowed to escalate, and we are not.
It's time we did so.
We should match not escalate
You don't respond to a military threat with a tit-for-tat action.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
You really are a Putin apologist
And you believe Belarus
Maybe you should listen to Europe allies
I don’t think he’s an apologist - he’s just scared which we all should be. Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t stand up to bullies and aggression though.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
NATO without America is still the collective self-defence of dozens of democracies that would mostly struggle to defend themselves individually.
In some ways NATO is even more important without America.
Yes, in essence. The challenge is to build this new entity, organisationally, financially, politically and militarily. It's a huge task.
You are correct but unfortunately it sort of needed the big bully of the US in it otherwise it will just be endless interests played off against each other with no dominant “leader”.
It was fairly recent where someone posted on here how the French were kicking off about a joint fighter project demanding leadership and the majority of work on it and it’s exactly that sort of shit that stops a well integrated and cooperative new organisation. France will want leadership as a nuclear power, Germany by virtue of being the richest and largest, Poland by having the biggest army and closest proximity.
If all the European countries could agree on buying the same aircraft, the same ships, subs, missiles and guns then it would get huge economies of scale and integration but will never happen because national interests.
That won't happen any time soon, owing to national interests, but there's already quite a large amount of integration. (See, for example, MBDA, or the multiple deals Thales has with other European and S Korean defence manufacturers. Or the various joint programs BAE or Leonardo, or Rheinmetal have.)
On the next generation fighter in particular France looks to be going its own way, as Germany wasn't offered more than a derisory share of the program.
The UK consortium is also going ahead, as it's now closed off access to any further partners at this stage (probably sensible as the politicking could otherwise go on for a long time). Official speaking at #DSEI2025 today confirmed that the #GCAP programme is presently closed to additional partners, though later manufacturing opportunities for customers beyond Italy, Japan, and the UK "are conceivable". https://x.com/GarethJennings3/status/1965479718117146953
Germany will probably end up buying into one or other of the two programs at the manufacturing stage.
Europe has its own GPS (Galileo now looks like something of an insurance policy rather than a waste of money), and some interesting new synthetic aperture radar satellite capability.
It's not perfect, but it represents a far greater potential capacity than Russia possesses.
Another gap (which Ukraine could fill).
It is difficult to overstate what an industry-policy failure it is for the EU and wider Europe to have enticed PBS Group to invest in the United States rather than scale up production in Europe.
(Low cost) Jet engine production is one of Europe’s major bottlenecks for rearmament in the missile domain. One of the few manufacturers shifting a substantial share of its future business abroad is extremely bad news. https://x.com/FRHoffmann1/status/1965368845394141496
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
But it's my understanding that in things like key weaponry, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, it's America and American capabilities that makes NATO what it is.
That need not be the case. Europe has its own AEW capability; several different military aircraft manufacturers; ditto missile manufactures; ditto armoured vehicles.
Trump has clearly demonstrated that over reliance on US kit represents a strategic risk. We should take more of an Israeli attitude to buying from the US: anything we don't have full and unrestricted control over shouldn't be an option.
Obvious comment, I know, but this should have started ages ago rather than waiting for the US to elect a hostile cowboy president. But things rarely happen that way, do they. When you have a situation that works for you, you just carry on with it until something forces you to change.
The west has been in denial for decades. We could not see a threat that required a large military force, partly because it was convenient. China was relatively friendly, and provided us with loads of plastic crud. Russia was giving us oodles of cheap oil and gas. Who else was there that would require a Cold War style military?
The peace dividend we have been spending since the early 1990s ignored one simple fact; that countries can turn from friendly to foe within a few years. In WW1 Japan was firmly aligned with the UK; twenty years later we were enemies.
Yep. Otoh we've had the benefit of the peace dividend. It was understandable to want and take one after the horror of WW2 and the tense decades of the cold war. The best way to prevent war is to prepare for it, they say, and there's truth in that. Equally if everybody is always preparing for war you can be sure you'll get one. So it's not straightforward to my mind. Although this one is, we have to help Ukraine fight off Russia.
Europe needs to stop acting as if it couldn’t cope without the US . This just emboldens Russia who know their gimp in the WH wouldn’t defend another NATO country .
I think we are again seeing the consequences of an absence of leadership.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
But it's my understanding that in things like key weaponry, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, it's America and American capabilities that makes NATO what it is.
That need not be the case. Europe has its own AEW capability; several different military aircraft manufacturers; ditto missile manufactures; ditto armoured vehicles.
Trump has clearly demonstrated that over reliance on US kit represents a strategic risk. We should take more of an Israeli attitude to buying from the US: anything we don't have full and unrestricted control over shouldn't be an option.
Obvious comment, I know, but this should have started ages ago rather than waiting for the US to elect a hostile cowboy president. But things rarely happen that way, do they. When you have a situation that works for you, you just carry on with it until something forces you to change.
The west has been in denial for decades. We could not see a threat that required a large military force, partly because it was convenient. China was relatively friendly, and provided us with loads of plastic crud. Russia was giving us oodles of cheap oil and gas. Who else was there that would require a Cold War style military?
The peace dividend we have been spending since the early 1990s ignored one simple fact; that countries can turn from friendly to foe within a few years. In WW1 Japan was firmly aligned with the UK; twenty years later we were enemies.
Yep. Otoh we've had the benefit of the peace dividend. It was understandable to want and take one after the horror of WW2 and the tense decades of the cold war. The best way to prevent war is to prepare for it, they say, and there's truth in that. Equally if everybody is always preparing for war you can be sure you'll get one. So it's not straightforward to my mind. Although this one is, we have to help Ukraine fight off Russia.
The error is that we didn't recognise in 2008 (Russian invasion of Georgia) or 2014 (First Russian invasion of Ukraine) that the situation had changed.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
It is everyone else.
The rest of the members (with the possible exception of Hungary) have a very strong shared interest in containing Russia - and the economic and military capacity to do so. All they lack currently is the determination.
If the US doesn't like it, we can label it something other than NATO.
Perhaps we should - although the title is less important than the content obviously.
What about the NATO nuclear deterrent angle though? Isn't that very heavily American?
The French have stepped forward to offer their nuclear deterrent for Europe, presumably so that countries like Poland don't feel compelled to develop their own nuclear deterrent.
They haven’t done that at all
Macron made some waffly remarks about the French deterrent having a “European dimension” which had macron’s usual purpose - indeed the usual purpose of all French governments - of making France sound important and grand and the leader of Europe, but without actually committing anything in writing, or spending any money because France is broke
The poles would be fools to rely on one macron speech. They aren’t fools, they won’t, which is why they still want America onside if at all possible
In the medium term Europe as a whole needs to develop a sizeable nuclear force (and this might include the UK, to make sure ours is properly independent)
Europe has to rediscover a martial spirit or we will be conquered. Same goes for our borders
I won’t be surprised if the “ European dimension” the French are thinking of with regard to their nukes is that the rest of Europe has to start paying towards the upkeep and increase but that French fingers (sounds like some Bonne Maman biscuit) decide if and when they could be used.
In a way it wouldn’t be a bad thing if Europe contributed to the nuclear deterrent of France and the UK but there would have to be a very tricky negotiation on control and ultimately it would be unusable due to any vetoes or voting rights of other contributors so would never happen.
This bickering about the French illustrates exactly the point you made about the political friction hampering any European defence effort.
Starmer under pressure over Mandelson appointment, Sky headline. This is kinda big moment in British Politics. Sometimes stories start in the background, but become slow burners to the big fire.
Kemi is about to forensically dissect Starmer at PMQs about what he did and didn’t know about Lord Yum Yum before appointing him UK Ambassador to the United States. Starmer must carefully negotiate this without telling lies. If Starmer lies about any of this, if he was told something but denies he was, it will bring him down as well. Let’s get our noses on what sounds like a lie from him as he faces PMQs.
Starmer under pressure over Mandelson appointment, Sky headline. This is kinda big moment in British Politics. Sometimes stories start in the background, but become slow burners to the big fire.
Kemi is about to forensically dissect Starmer at PMQs about what he did and didn’t know about Lord Yum Yum before appointing him UK Ambassador to the United States. Starmer must carefully negotiate this without telling lies. If Starmer lies about any of this, if he was told something but denies he was, it will bring him down as well. Let’s get our noses on what sounds like a lie from him as he faces PMQs.
“ Kemi is about to forensically dissect Starmer at PMQs”
No, it’s very unlikely that Kemi will be replaced by a Lizead Person in a People suit. So it’s very unlikely that Starmer will get dissected.
Starmer under pressure over Mandelson appointment, Sky headline. This is kinda big moment in British Politics. Sometimes stories start in the background, but become slow burners to the big fire.
Kemi is about to forensically dissect Starmer at PMQs about what he did and didn’t know about Lord Yum Yum before appointing him UK Ambassador to the United States. Starmer must carefully negotiate this without telling lies. If Starmer lies about any of this, if he was told something but denies he was, it will bring him down as well. Let’s get our noses on what sounds like a lie from him as he faces PMQs.
Mandy is definitely the big issue of the day. Kemi will look truly statesperson-like focusing on that, if she does.
If we sent a 19 attack drones into Kaliningrad, and claimed it was owing to Russia jamming GPS (which they regularly do around the Baltic) do people really think Russia would believe it was by accident ?
"America’s left cannot exploit Trump’s failures The president’s genius is to keep pushing the Democrats into a reactive defence of the status quo Edward Luce" (£)
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
You really are a Putin apologist
And you believe Belarus
Maybe you should listen to Europe allies
None of them unlike you seem to want WW3, the drones have been shot down, leave it there
Must be weird for Geordies to eat something that’s called rat but isn’t compared to usual where they are eating rat called something else.
I fear you will be disappointed in your faith in chippies and burger makers south of Wear (and for all I know north of Ashington). Especially if Usonian food standards are allowed over here. (I can't find the permitted % of rat in the UK, to be fair.)
The fact Starmer isn’t going anywhere near answering these good questions explicitly proves he knew so much, yet still made the appointment. Starmer is soooooo up to his eyebrows in doo doo. He is doing flips not to answer so he doesn’t tell a lie. He is naked without even the dearest hint of bathrobe.
Reform’s Campaign Director for Wales, Cllr David Thomas, was appointed the role by the party’s chairman, Zia Yusuf, earlier this year.
It followed the departure of interim director of the party in Wales – Kirsty Walmsley who was made redundant.
Walmsley had been tasked with installing chairpersons in new branches across Wales but was later accused of engaging in “cronyism” when she appointed her own father for one of the roles.
A Reform insider told us that after Walmsely was ejected by the party, David Thomas – who is also a councillor in Torfaen – began dismissing branch chairs and replacing them with “interim branch chairs”.
(9 from 16 are reported to have been dismissed, and David Thomas to be problematic.)
Starmer under pressure over Mandelson appointment, Sky headline. This is kinda big moment in British Politics. Sometimes stories start in the background, but become slow burners to the big fire.
Kemi is about to forensically dissect Starmer at PMQs about what he did and didn’t know about Lord Yum Yum before appointing him UK Ambassador to the United States. Starmer must carefully negotiate this without telling lies. If Starmer lies about any of this, if he was told something but denies he was, it will bring him down as well. Let’s get our noses on what sounds like a lie from him as he faces PMQs.
“ Kemi is about to forensically dissect Starmer at PMQs”
No, it’s very unlikely that Kemi will be replaced by a Lizead Person in a People suit. So it’s very unlikely that Starmer will get dissected.
She skewered him on Judgement. Did she not? Starmer just wouldn’t answer. Embarrassingly so.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
You really are a Putin apologist
And you believe Belarus
Maybe you should listen to Europe allies
None of them unlike you seem to want WW3, the drones have been shot down, leave it there
Of course I do not want WW3 but appeasement is not acceptable
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
That is not yet the response from NATO, which is why the Russians are now trying to walk things back a little, given the very vigorous response from Warsaw. The drone attack is not accidental, it is a deliberate provocation of NATO, which has been expected for some time. The forced closure of Warsaw Airport amongst others is not something the Poles will or can ignore - hence the disinformation story from Minsk that its all a little misunderstanding. In fact the NATO walk back will come only after a proportionate response is made and the Russians are trying to mitigate the response they know is coming. This could include helping the Ukrainians to destroy a significant Russian asset such as further refinery strikes or the Kerch bridge or even a further drone attack on Murmansk or other strategic assets.
Can you imagine if Heathrow and Brize Norton had been closed in such a manner? The Poles are rightly furious.
While I would not wish to test it, the efficiency of the Russian nuclear triad is an open question. Since NATO too has nuclear forces, the need for restraint cuts both ways and the Russians just made a big mistake. They know the game and also know that their provocation will be answered. This is not WWIII, and Putin is the problem here, not NATO.
FFS Starmer . What has Mandelson got on Starmer that he’s impossible to remove .
The longer Lord Yum Yum clings on to his job before eventually removed, the more damage he will do to Starmer, Starmer’s government, and the Labour Party. Simples.
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
Landslide majority and hubris. They thought they could do anything they liked
Starmer retrospectively stabbing His DPM in between the shoulder blades...in fr9nt of his own MP's He just doesn't have a grasp on his job.. its painful and awful to watch.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
But it's my understanding that in things like key weaponry, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, it's America and American capabilities that makes NATO what it is.
NATO is quite integrated and the US is the biggest military power in NATO, so there is a tendency to rely on the US for certain functions (e.g., spy satellites), but I think you are underestimating the rest of NATO. OK, maybe Iceland and Montenegro aren't bringing much to the party, but countries like the UK, France, Italy, Germany and Poland all have significant military forces.
Here's a list of countries by military spending (in billions of dollars) in 2024:
1 United States 968.0 NATO 2 China 235.0 3 Russia 145.9 4 Germany 86.0 NATO 5 United Kingdom 81.1 NATO 6 India 74.4 7 Saudi Arabia 71.7 8 France 64.0 NATO 9 Japan 53.0 10 South Korea 43.9 11 Australia 36.4 12 Italy 35.2 NATO 13 Israel 33.7 14 Ukraine 28.4 15 Poland 28.4 NATO 16 Canada 27.0 NATO 17 Brazil 24.4 18 Netherlands 23.6 NATO 19 United Arab Emirates 22.3 20 Algeria 21.4
... and there are 4 more NATO countries in 21-30. NATO without the US is the second biggest spender in the world.
But, yes, if the US withdrew from NATO, the other countries would have to re-configure what they do.
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
Landslide majority and hubris. They thought they could do anything they liked
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Putin also has more nuclear missiles than anyone else on earth. Putin's ally Belarus have now said the drones were sent in error into Poland, the drones have been shot down by the Poles in response, I would leave it there.
That is not yet the response from NATO, which is why the Russians are now trying to walk things back a little, given the very vigorous response from Warsaw. The drone attack is not accidental, it is a deliberate provocation of NATO, which has been expected for some time. The forced closure of Warsaw Airport amongst others is not something the Poles will or can ignore - hence the disinformation story from Minsk that its all a little misunderstanding. In fact the NATO walk back will come only after a proportionate response is made and the Russians are trying to mitigate the response they know is coming. This could include helping the Ukrainians to destroy a significant Russian asset such as further refinery strikes or the Kerch bridge or even a further drone attack on Murmansk or other strategic assets.
Can you imagine if Heathrow and Brize Norton had been closed in such a manner? The Poles are rightly furious.
While I would not wish to test it, the efficiency of the Russian nuclear triad is an open question. Since NATO too has nuclear forces, the need for restraint cuts both ways and the Russians just made a big mistake. They know the game and also know that their provocation will be answered. This is not WWIII, and Putin is the problem here, not NATO.
The other thing open to question, though, is the capability of European air defence. We do not seem presently to have the capacity to reliably intercept these drones (and there were only a score of them this time, not several hundred)
Probing Europe's air defences was surely part of this thing ?
What am I missing ? Wouldn’t it be clear to anyone that making a deal with a paedo should be completely unacceptable, staying in his apartment while he’s in prison is similarly totally unacceptable. How the fxck do you get the job of ambassador to the US with all that already known ?
Landslide majority and hubris. They thought they could do anything they liked
What about due process?
What does due process actually mean ? This is not a defence from Starmer .
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
But it's my understanding that in things like key weaponry, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, it's America and American capabilities that makes NATO what it is.
That need not be the case. Europe has its own AEW capability; several different military aircraft manufacturers; ditto missile manufactures; ditto armoured vehicles.
Trump has clearly demonstrated that over reliance on US kit represents a strategic risk. We should take more of an Israeli attitude to buying from the US: anything we don't have full and unrestricted control over shouldn't be an option.
Obvious comment, I know, but this should have started ages ago rather than waiting for the US to elect a hostile cowboy president. But things rarely happen that way, do they. When you have a situation that works for you, you just carry on with it until something forces you to change.
The west has been in denial for decades. We could not see a threat that required a large military force, partly because it was convenient. China was relatively friendly, and provided us with loads of plastic crud. Russia was giving us oodles of cheap oil and gas. Who else was there that would require a Cold War style military?
The peace dividend we have been spending since the early 1990s ignored one simple fact; that countries can turn from friendly to foe within a few years. In WW1 Japan was firmly aligned with the UK; twenty years later we were enemies.
Yep. Otoh we've had the benefit of the peace dividend. It was understandable to want and take one after the horror of WW2 and the tense decades of the cold war. The best way to prevent war is to prepare for it, they say, and there's truth in that. Equally if everybody is always preparing for war you can be sure you'll get one. So it's not straightforward to my mind. Although this one is, we have to help Ukraine fight off Russia.
The error is that we didn't recognise in 2008 (Russian invasion of Georgia) or 2014 (First Russian invasion of Ukraine) that the situation had changed.
There are two key changes, I think. Russia returning to imperialist aggression in Europe and America losing interest in European security. Each has fed the other to create the current situation - a very warlike Russia and a very disengaged America.
Still, you can't change the past. You can only try and do the best from here. Support Ukraine with money and weapons in their existential war of defence against Russia - this is what it boils down to.
That's Badenoch's best PMQs and Starmer is a national embarrassment
Lord Yum Yum must be gone before the State visit. The UK needs a British Ambassador, not a shifty self serving networker. How Starmer orchestrates it will be interesting to see - as what is abundantly clear from today’s PMQs, WHAT CLEARLY MAKES A RESIGNATION MATTER NOW WAS ALREADY KNOWN TO STARMER WHEN HE MADE THE APPOINTMENT. Who predicted the first weeks after the holidays would be such fun politics. Looking back, these weeks, days and hours may be redefining British Politics for a generation.
A Labour Party implosion in the polls with benefit Kemi and the Conservatives most of all.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
But it's my understanding that in things like key weaponry, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, it's America and American capabilities that makes NATO what it is.
That need not be the case. Europe has its own AEW capability; several different military aircraft manufacturers; ditto missile manufactures; ditto armoured vehicles.
Trump has clearly demonstrated that over reliance on US kit represents a strategic risk. We should take more of an Israeli attitude to buying from the US: anything we don't have full and unrestricted control over shouldn't be an option.
Obvious comment, I know, but this should have started ages ago rather than waiting for the US to elect a hostile cowboy president. But things rarely happen that way, do they. When you have a situation that works for you, you just carry on with it until something forces you to change.
The west has been in denial for decades. We could not see a threat that required a large military force, partly because it was convenient. China was relatively friendly, and provided us with loads of plastic crud. Russia was giving us oodles of cheap oil and gas. Who else was there that would require a Cold War style military?
The peace dividend we have been spending since the early 1990s ignored one simple fact; that countries can turn from friendly to foe within a few years. In WW1 Japan was firmly aligned with the UK; twenty years later we were enemies.
Re the last sentence; that was, I was once told by an Australian academic in Thailand, at least partly due to the Americans.
Comments
We've got the ships, we've got the men and we've got the money too"
Historical note on Anglo-Russian relations through the ages:
https://folksongandmusichall.com/index.php/macdermotts-war-song/
Spoiler alert. By 1914 we were on the same side.
The rest of the members (with the possible exception of Hungary) have a very strong shared interest in containing Russia - and the economic and military capacity to do so. All they lack currently is the determination.
If the US doesn't like it, we can label it something other than NATO.
The same person said that they thought that Angela Rayner and done that, and that Emily Thornberry would be a good candidate.
That was from someone who is not Labour (actually left of current Labour) but wants a progressive Govt.
Here's a list of countries by military spending (in billions of dollars) in 2024:
1 United States 968.0 NATO
2 China 235.0
3 Russia 145.9
4 Germany 86.0 NATO
5 United Kingdom 81.1 NATO
6 India 74.4
7 Saudi Arabia 71.7
8 France 64.0 NATO
9 Japan 53.0
10 South Korea 43.9
11 Australia 36.4
12 Italy 35.2 NATO
13 Israel 33.7
14 Ukraine 28.4
15 Poland 28.4 NATO
16 Canada 27.0 NATO
17 Brazil 24.4
18 Netherlands 23.6 NATO
19 United Arab Emirates 22.3
20 Algeria 21.4
... and there are 4 more NATO countries in 21-30. NATO without the US is the second biggest spender in the world.
But, yes, if the US withdrew from NATO, the other countries would have to re-configure what they do.
The point I noted was that Local Branches of Reform are barred from having bank accounts, and I don't know what others parties do - other than Lib Dem parties do have bank accounts but they seem to be held outside the party structures (liability reasons, I presume).
However, what you are underestimating is that the public don't just want the boats stopped, but a growing number want all immigration stopped
NATO without the US has more nuclear submarines than anyone except the US and Russia.
Europe has its own AEW capability; several different military aircraft manufacturers; ditto missile manufactures; ditto armoured vehicles.
Trump has clearly demonstrated that over reliance on US kit represents a strategic risk. We should take more of an Israeli attitude to buying from the US: anything we don't have full and unrestricted control over shouldn't be an option.
* https://militaryppp.com/2025/05/12/real-military-spending-2024-military-ppp/
It was fairly recent where someone posted on here how the French were kicking off about a joint fighter project demanding leadership and the majority of work on it and it’s exactly that sort of shit that stops a well integrated and cooperative new organisation. France will want leadership as a nuclear power, Germany by virtue of being the richest and largest, Poland by having the biggest army and closest proximity.
If all the European countries could agree on buying the same aircraft, the same ships, subs, missiles and guns then it would get huge economies of scale and integration but will never happen because national interests.
What about the NATO nuclear deterrent angle though? Isn't that very heavily American?
The problematic bit is the capability gaps - satellites, intelligence, logistics, SEAD/DEAD - because filling those will be very expensive and not fast.
I’m in Sardinia and I just want to chill
Grazie
Essentially much of South East and Eastern England is genetically quite homogeneous. Devon and Cornwall are much more distinct as are the Welsh Marches. Northumbria and Cumbria have greater ties to Scotland.
Boris Johnson on a beach in Sardinia:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/carrie-johnson-holiday-sardinia-boris-children-instagram-beach-general-election-b1165090.html
Two tourists in Sardinia die in fireball (aged 61 and 62). Aka twats in supercars:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/two-killed-ferrari-lamborghini-van-crash-sardinia-b1111135.html
Israeli soldiers on holiday in Sardinia:
https://www.wantedinrome.com/news/outcry-over-reports-of-israeli-soldiers-on-holiday-in-italy.html
Have a nice gin.
Macron made some waffly remarks about the French deterrent having a “European dimension” which had macron’s usual purpose - indeed the usual purpose of all French governments - of making France sound important and grand and the leader of Europe, but without actually committing anything in writing, or spending any money because France is broke
The poles would be fools to rely on one macron speech. They aren’t fools, they won’t, which is why they still want America onside if at all possible
In the medium term Europe as a whole needs to develop a sizeable nuclear force (and this might include the UK, to make sure ours is properly independent)
Europe has to rediscover a martial spirit or we will be conquered. Same goes for our borders
The peace dividend we have been spending since the early 1990s ignored one simple fact; that countries can turn from friendly to foe within a few years. In WW1 Japan was firmly aligned with the UK; twenty years later we were enemies.
I wrote about Trump’s comments trivializing domestic violence, and tried to chart the parallels between his own theory of governance and the logic of abusers.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/09/trump-domestic-violence
(See, for example, MBDA, or the multiple deals Thales has with other European and S Korean defence manufacturers. Or the various joint programs BAE or Leonardo, or Rheinmetal have.)
On the next generation fighter in particular France looks to be going its own way, as Germany wasn't offered more than a derisory share of the program.
The UK consortium is also going ahead, as it's now closed off access to any further partners at this stage (probably sensible as the politicking could otherwise go on for a long time).
Official speaking at #DSEI2025 today confirmed that the #GCAP programme is presently closed to additional partners, though later manufacturing opportunities for customers beyond Italy, Japan, and the UK "are conceivable".
https://x.com/GarethJennings3/status/1965479718117146953
Germany will probably end up buying into one or other of the two programs at the manufacturing stage.
Europe has its own GPS (Galileo now looks like something of an insurance policy rather than a waste of money), and some interesting new synthetic aperture radar satellite capability.
It's not perfect, but it represents a far greater potential capacity than Russia possesses.
Obviously we don't have the US logistics capacity, but purely in the context of Europe, we don't need to replicate anything like it.
The biggest single gap is perhaps our complete lack of a reusable launch vehicle.
In a way it wouldn’t be a bad thing if Europe contributed to the nuclear deterrent of France and the UK but there would have to be a very tricky negotiation on control and ultimately it would be unusable due to any vetoes or voting rights of other contributors so would never happen.
Drivers going through a red light then stopping at the repeater, blocking the way through for others. The repeater does not have a stop line, so should they stop?
(There's also something here about over-complicated junctions.)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Y9Pli98aQCk
"America’s left cannot exploit Trump’s failures
The president’s genius is to keep pushing the Democrats into a reactive defence of the status quo
Edward Luce" (£)
https://www.ft.com/content/dfcacf73-afe0-465b-9e97-70b7e2dcf9ad
It is difficult to overstate what an industry-policy failure it is for the EU and wider Europe to have enticed PBS Group to invest in the United States rather than scale up production in Europe.
(Low cost) Jet engine production is one of Europe’s major bottlenecks for rearmament in the missile domain. One of the few manufacturers shifting a substantial share of its future business abroad is extremely bad news.
https://x.com/FRHoffmann1/status/1965368845394141496
And you believe Belarus
Maybe you should listen to Europe allies
EDIT: guess what modular nukes (latest interest in Poland) are fuelled with?
You remove the threat.
https://www.pbs.cz/en/News/PBS-GROUP-Launches-Jet-Engine-Production-in-the-USA
They are also expanding their Cz operation.
Kemi is about to forensically dissect Starmer at PMQs about what he did and didn’t know about Lord Yum Yum before appointing him UK Ambassador to the United States. Starmer must carefully negotiate this without telling lies. If Starmer lies about any of this, if he was told something but denies he was, it will bring him down as well.
Let’s get our noses on what sounds like a lie from him as he faces PMQs.
Inject their salty tears into my veins.
Scott & Wilson restaurant based in Newcastle is serving the ‘Swedish rat 🐀 ’ - a burger stuffed with IKEA meatballs and Swedish gravy.
This burger 🍔 was named after Alexander Isak and now it’s quickly become one of the most popular burgers in Newcastle.
https://x.com/indykaila/status/1965542175166661034
No, it’s very unlikely that Kemi will be replaced by a Lizead Person in a People suit. So it’s very unlikely that Starmer will get dissected.
.
A Russian attack drone hit and damaged a house in the village of Wyryki, Poland, overnight.
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1965660035926949986
If we sent a 19 attack drones into Kaliningrad, and claimed it was owing to Russia jamming GPS (which they regularly do around the Baltic) do people really think Russia would believe it was by accident ?
Reform’s Campaign Director for Wales, Cllr David Thomas, was appointed the role by the party’s chairman, Zia Yusuf, earlier this year.
It followed the departure of interim director of the party in Wales – Kirsty Walmsley who was made redundant.
Walmsley had been tasked with installing chairpersons in new branches across Wales but was later accused of engaging in “cronyism” when she appointed her own father for one of the roles.
A Reform insider told us that after Walmsely was ejected by the party, David Thomas – who is also a councillor in Torfaen – began dismissing branch chairs and replacing them with “interim branch chairs”.
(9 from 16 are reported to have been dismissed, and David Thomas to be problematic.)
https://nation.cymru/news/senior-reform-figure-accused-of-authoritarianism-amid-internal-row-over-welsh-branch-chairs/
Oh dear..........
Remember that night when Iran attacked Israel and when NATO jets were collectively shooting the drones and missiles down? It’s every night in Ukraine.
Only more drones. And without NATO jets.
https://x.com/olex_scherba/status/1965643276536746247
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1965679809205600587
*A decoy drone they send alongside the Shaheeds, which is why it's intact.
What did he know and when did he know it
Oh dear..
Do rent boys feature
https://x.com/Tatarigami_UA/status/1965668064865013884
Can you imagine if Heathrow and Brize Norton had been closed in such a manner? The Poles are rightly furious.
While I would not wish to test it, the efficiency of the Russian nuclear triad is an open question. Since NATO too has nuclear forces, the need for restraint cuts both ways and the Russians just made a big mistake. They know the game and also know that their provocation will be answered. This is not WWIII, and Putin is the problem here, not NATO.
Mandelson cannot stay in Office
His DPM in between the shoulder blades...in fr9nt of his own MP's He just doesn't have a grasp on his job.. its painful and awful to watch.
Montenegro has some deep water ports
I might need the number of letters and I’m not sure I can offer a solution without breaking the online safety Act….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiM1EYlQgzg
We do not seem presently to have the capacity to reliably intercept these drones (and there were only a score of them this time, not several hundred)
Probing Europe's air defences was surely part of this thing ?
Still, you can't change the past. You can only try and do the best from here. Support Ukraine with money and weapons in their existential war of defence against Russia - this is what it boils down to.
The only reason he is still in post is that Trump is similarly entangled. And that's not sufficient reason.
A Labour Party implosion in the polls with benefit Kemi and the Conservatives most of all.