It is craven, but unfortunately that cravenness is on the national interest.
SKS can't say the US actions are fine, because they totes aren't.
But the UK government can't afford to piss off the tangerine toddler by telling the truth out loud.
I understand the argument and I do not doubt for a second that Starmer's real views are a long way from the public face he thinks he need to put forward. I simply do not agree with it. Whether it is Canada, Greenland, tariffs or this invasion we do ourselves no favours by pretending this is acceptable and we simply lay the ground for the next outrage.
I think Starmer's calculation is 1. The UK has little interest in Venezuela 2. Annoying Trump could be be damaging in several practical ways for no benefit. 3. The principle of domestic sovereignty does matter very much to the UK, eg in Ukraine, Falklands, Greenland.
While I accept his statement will balance those three viewpoints, I would like to see a bit more about (3) and less about (1).
Trump throws Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado under the bus, saying she’s “a very nice lady” but doesn’t have the support or respect in Venezuela to lead the country. https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/2007506064124850655
Sounds like a coherent plan.
“We’re going to be running it with a group,” Trump says when asked who is in charge of Venezuela and how the U.S. is going to run it. “We’re not afraid of boots on the ground…We don’t mind saying it. We’re going to make sure that country is run properly.” https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/2007501761389703615
Trump could’ve sat back and gone, ‘Look at this great military operation. We’ve got Maduro. Venezuela can sort itself out.’ Big political win.
Instead, presumably through literal senility, he has made all sorts of claims that are unrelated to the facts on the ground. His idea that he now controls Venezuela is either going to prove nonsense, or he’s going to have to commit US military forces to make it true in a manner that will piss off many voters.
I don't really understand it, and it looks like a huge mess in the making (assuming the Trump circus doesn't just move on and forget about running Venezuela in a couple of days), but on the plus side, if the US is embroiled in a quagmire in Venezuela they'll be too busy to take Greenland. So there's that.
We can go back to the theory that Trump just wants to dominate the headlines every day. So, nothing much changes in Venezuela, Trump ignores everything he said, Fox News ignores everything he said, and Trump moved on to some other way of distracting from the cost of living and Epstein…?
He might be distracting himself from cost of living issues but he's not distracting anyone who's struggling financially.
Is @whitehouse on X anything to do with the actual White House? Surely not?!
What with that account, and Trumps truth social or whatever it’s called, it’s like living in an American film version of life. Attacks on other countries filmed with rock music backing tracks and special effects. Mental
Are we willing to pay the price of being fully autonomous from the US?
We're not even willing to increase defence spending just a little bit as it is.
The complete lack of urgency to increase defence spending is one area where Starmer is unquestionably fucking up big time.
He is, however, increasing defence spending. That’s a step in the right direction, no?
Defence Resource DEL increases from £37.5bn in 24-25 to £42.0bn in 28-29 an increase of a total of 12% over 4 years above inflation. Defence Capital DEL increases from £22.7bn to £31.5bn over the same period, an increase of a total of 39% above inflation over 4 years.
Combined this is an increase from £60.2bn to £73.5bn, or 22% over 4 years, about 5% each year compounded, above inflation.
It's more than I thought, but less than is required.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
Are we willing to pay the price of being fully autonomous from the US?
We're not even willing to increase defence spending just a little bit as it is.
The complete lack of urgency to increase defence spending is one area where Starmer is unquestionably fucking up big time.
He is, however, increasing defence spending. That’s a step in the right direction, no?
Defence Resource DEL increases from £37.5bn in 24-25 to £42.0bn in 28-29 an increase of a total of 12% over 4 years above inflation. Defence Capital DEL increases from £22.7bn to £31.5bn over the same period, an increase of a total of 39% above inflation over 4 years.
Combined this is an increase from £60.2bn to £73.5bn, or 22% over 4 years, about 5% each year compounded, above inflation.
It's more than I thought, but less than is required.
UK defence spending is certainly going up at a much slower rate than it came down
Trump throws Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado under the bus, saying she’s “a very nice lady” but doesn’t have the support or respect in Venezuela to lead the country. https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/2007506064124850655
Sounds like a coherent plan.
“We’re going to be running it with a group,” Trump says when asked who is in charge of Venezuela and how the U.S. is going to run it. “We’re not afraid of boots on the ground…We don’t mind saying it. We’re going to make sure that country is run properly.” https://x.com/kaitlancollins/status/2007501761389703615
Trump could’ve sat back and gone, ‘Look at this great military operation. We’ve got Maduro. Venezuela can sort itself out.’ Big political win.
Instead, presumably through literal senility, he has made all sorts of claims that are unrelated to the facts on the ground. His idea that he now controls Venezuela is either going to prove nonsense, or he’s going to have to commit US military forces to make it true in a manner that will piss off many voters.
I don't really understand it, and it looks like a huge mess in the making (assuming the Trump circus doesn't just move on and forget about running Venezuela in a couple of days), but on the plus side, if the US is embroiled in a quagmire in Venezuela they'll be too busy to take Greenland. So there's that.
We can go back to the theory that Trump just wants to dominate the headlines every day. So, nothing much changes in Venezuela, Trump ignores everything he said, Fox News ignores everything he said, and Trump moved on to some other way of distracting from the cost of living and Epstein…?
There's plenty of mileage left in bombing Venezuela from a safe distance, and assassinating key regime figures, if the Venezuelan regime resists.
Then of course there is the argument that this is Rubio's project, and maybe he'll convince Trump to sign off on something. Strange though it might be too think, it's probably the case that Trump has less control of his administration than Starmer does of his ministry. There will be a lot of manoeuvring between different figures that we won't see.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
Lets hope Trump doesn't get the wrong end of the stick about a reports of Little Nuke in London and it if carries on it for another 15 minutes could be all over.
147 check out to take the title and a million quid.
Also, in terms of the public's willingness to support increased Defence spending I think people underestimate the public and excuse the politicians. We can see other European countries, not just Poland and the Baltic States who are on the front line, but countries like Germany and Denmark who are doing a lot more to increase defence spending than the UK.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
Are we willing to pay the price of being fully autonomous from the US?
We're not even willing to increase defence spending just a little bit as it is.
The complete lack of urgency to increase defence spending is one area where Starmer is unquestionably fucking up big time.
He is, however, increasing defence spending. That’s a step in the right direction, no?
Defence Resource DEL increases from £37.5bn in 24-25 to £42.0bn in 28-29 an increase of a total of 12% over 4 years above inflation. Defence Capital DEL increases from £22.7bn to £31.5bn over the same period, an increase of a total of 39% above inflation over 4 years.
Combined this is an increase from £60.2bn to £73.5bn, or 22% over 4 years, about 5% each year compounded, above inflation.
It's more than I thought, but less than is required.
The whole 'increase defence spending' push is one of these very simplistic, easy-sounding bandwagons that is, frankly, a terrible idea.
We do not need to 'increase defence spending' - we need to decide upon a set of military capabilities (a few examples being the ability to protect the British Isles from missile attack, a nuclear weapon of last resort, the naval might to police our territorial waters, enough of a standing army to do xxxx, the ability to project xxxx into a foreign field of battle...), then assess what we need to do and how much we need to spend to get there.
The MOD (in common with most Government departments) is a disaster. Putting 'increased defence spending' in there without reform would be the equivalent of putting it on a bonfire.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
I studied logic as a speciality of my maths degree. That is not logic. It is speculation. It might be educated speculation, but definitely isn't logic.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
It’s not deductive logic. Maybe it’s abductive logic, but it’s piss poor abductive logic.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
I studied logic as a speciality of my maths degree. That is not logic. It is speculation. It might be educated speculation, but definitely isn't logic.
"The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere." Ok expert, explain why this is speculation. The two sentences are truisms.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
I studied logic as a speciality of my maths degree. That is not logic. It is speculation. It might be educated speculation, but definitely isn't logic.
"The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere." Ok expert, explain why this is speculation. The two sentences are truisms.
There is an implied third claim that, therefore, they got the information from the VP. That’s the problematic step.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
I studied logic as a speciality of my maths degree. That is not logic. It is speculation. It might be educated speculation, but definitely isn't logic.
"The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere." Ok expert, explain why this is speculation. The two sentences are truisms.
There is an implied third claim that, therefore, they got the information from the VP. That’s the problematic step.
That's your inference. It is not implied by the statements
Are we willing to pay the price of being fully autonomous from the US?
We're not even willing to increase defence spending just a little bit as it is.
The complete lack of urgency to increase defence spending is one area where Starmer is unquestionably fucking up big time.
He is, however, increasing defence spending. That’s a step in the right direction, no?
Defence Resource DEL increases from £37.5bn in 24-25 to £42.0bn in 28-29 an increase of a total of 12% over 4 years above inflation. Defence Capital DEL increases from £22.7bn to £31.5bn over the same period, an increase of a total of 39% above inflation over 4 years.
Combined this is an increase from £60.2bn to £73.5bn, or 22% over 4 years, about 5% each year compounded, above inflation.
It's more than I thought, but less than is required.
The whole 'increase defence spending' push is one of these very simplistic, easy-sounding bandwagons that is, frankly, a terrible idea.
We do not need to 'increase defence spending' - we need to decide upon a set of military capabilities (a few examples being the ability to protect the British Isles from missile attack, a nuclear weapon of last resort, the naval might to police our territorial waters, enough of a standing army to do xxxx, the ability to project xxxx into a foreign field of battle...), then assess what we need to do and how much we need to spend to get there.
The MOD (in common with most Government departments) is a disaster. Putting 'increased defence spending' in there without reform would be the equivalent of putting it on a bonfire.
All that is fair criticism, but for a non-specialist like myself it would be hard to judge all the detail, and any reasonable assessment I've seen of Britain's defence needs concludes that - along with reform - there needs to be more spent.
So the spending total is something that I can look at and judge whether it is happening. And it is, a little, but not at a pace commensurate with the changes that are happening in the world and the urgency of our defence needs.
So, Trump made a bunch of claims at the press conference that seem unrelated to reality. Why?
He claimed that Rubio had talked to Rodríguez and that she was basically capitulating. Rodríguez has since said very different things to the Venezuelan people. So, was Rodríguez playing for time, or did Trump not understand and leapt to assumptions, or did Rubio mislead Trump?
Plus also, for all the inefficiency of the MoD, Britain doesn't have zero defence capability for the money spent, and it demonstrably has more defence capability than many countries that spend less - such as Ireland, say - and so I do think that simply spending more would get you more capability and would not be as bad as throwing the money into a bonfire.
Obviously there would be better and worse ways of spending the money, but simply buying a bit more of everything that Britain currently has wouldn't be the worst use of the money.
Plus also, for all the inefficiency of the MoD, Britain doesn't have zero defence capability for the money spent, and it demonstrably has more defence capability than many countries that spend less - such as Ireland, say - and so I do think that simply spending more would get you more capability and would not be as bad as throwing the money into a bonfire.
Obviously there would be better and worse ways of spending the money, but simply buying a bit more of everything that Britain currently has wouldn't be the worst use of the money.
Our military needs to be fit for purpose.
Job number one should be to expel US troops from their UK bases.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
I studied logic as a speciality of my maths degree. That is not logic. It is speculation. It might be educated speculation, but definitely isn't logic.
"The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere." Ok expert, explain why this is speculation. The two sentences are truisms.
There is an implied third claim that, therefore, they got the information from the VP. That’s the problematic step.
BBC just said it was a CIA asset very close to the now ex-President.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
I studied logic as a speciality of my maths degree. That is not logic. It is speculation. It might be educated speculation, but definitely isn't logic.
"The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere." Ok expert, explain why this is speculation. The two sentences are truisms.
There is an implied third claim that, therefore, they got the information from the VP. That’s the problematic step.
BBC just said it was a CIA asset very close to the now ex-President.
That could be the VP! We’ll find out in 100 years perhaps!
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
I studied logic as a speciality of my maths degree. That is not logic. It is speculation. It might be educated speculation, but definitely isn't logic.
"The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere." Ok expert, explain why this is speculation. The two sentences are truisms.
There is an implied third claim that, therefore, they got the information from the VP. That’s the problematic step.
That's your inference. It is not implied by the statements
You literally responded to the question ' Do you have any (evidence)?' with you statements. It is reasonable to assume you were answering the question and not typing random words so it was precisely your inference and not @bondegezou .
Plus also, for all the inefficiency of the MoD, Britain doesn't have zero defence capability for the money spent, and it demonstrably has more defence capability than many countries that spend less - such as Ireland, say - and so I do think that simply spending more would get you more capability and would not be as bad as throwing the money into a bonfire.
Obviously there would be better and worse ways of spending the money, but simply buying a bit more of everything that Britain currently has wouldn't be the worst use of the money.
Also, also, we have a plan for reform. We have the defence review. Serious (non-politicians) people created this plan. Other serious (non-politicians) people have judged it to be a good plan. As did our Casino.
Sure, it needs to be implemented, but part of that is it needs funding.
Simply saying there's no point increasing defence spending because it will be wasted is not serious.
Are we willing to pay the price of being fully autonomous from the US?
We're not even willing to increase defence spending just a little bit as it is.
The complete lack of urgency to increase defence spending is one area where Starmer is unquestionably fucking up big time.
He is, however, increasing defence spending. That’s a step in the right direction, no?
Defence Resource DEL increases from £37.5bn in 24-25 to £42.0bn in 28-29 an increase of a total of 12% over 4 years above inflation. Defence Capital DEL increases from £22.7bn to £31.5bn over the same period, an increase of a total of 39% above inflation over 4 years.
Combined this is an increase from £60.2bn to £73.5bn, or 22% over 4 years, about 5% each year compounded, above inflation.
It's more than I thought, but less than is required.
The whole 'increase defence spending' push is one of these very simplistic, easy-sounding bandwagons that is, frankly, a terrible idea.
We do not need to 'increase defence spending' - we need to decide upon a set of military capabilities (a few examples being the ability to protect the British Isles from missile attack, a nuclear weapon of last resort, the naval might to police our territorial waters, enough of a standing army to do xxxx, the ability to project xxxx into a foreign field of battle...), then assess what we need to do and how much we need to spend to get there.
The MOD (in common with most Government departments) is a disaster. Putting 'increased defence spending' in there without reform would be the equivalent of putting it on a bonfire.
Even before capabilities get decided, two things that absolutely need to be done right away are fixing procurement and investing in increasing availability of existing assets. AJAX is the current poster child for messed up procurement, but only the scale marks it out of a long line of disasters.
Availability is another bonfire. At times recently the RN has only a single SSN operational, and far too many of the surface fleet are spending years out of action for maintenance or refit. Money has to spent making sure the kit we already have is there to be used when necessary.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
I studied logic as a speciality of my maths degree. That is not logic. It is speculation. It might be educated speculation, but definitely isn't logic.
"The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere." Ok expert, explain why this is speculation. The two sentences are truisms.
There is an implied third claim that, therefore, they got the information from the VP. That’s the problematic step.
BBC just said it was a CIA asset very close to the now ex-President.
That could be the VP! We’ll find out in 100 years perhaps!
So, Trump made a bunch of claims at the press conference that seem unrelated to reality. Why?
He claimed that Rubio had talked to Rodríguez and that she was basically capitulating. Rodríguez has since said very different things to the Venezuelan people. So, was Rodríguez playing for time, or did Trump not understand and leapt to assumptions, or did Rubio mislead Trump?
There are no consequences for lying in Trump world so all the presidential statements seem dedicated to keeping him in the media and tormenting the opposition. Doubt we’ll find an objective truth in any of his nonsense.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
I studied logic as a speciality of my maths degree. That is not logic. It is speculation. It might be educated speculation, but definitely isn't logic.
"The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere." Ok expert, explain why this is speculation. The two sentences are truisms.
There is an implied third claim that, therefore, they got the information from the VP. That’s the problematic step.
That's your inference. It is not implied by the statements
You literally responded to the question ' Do you have any (evidence)?' with you statements. It is reasonable to assume you were answering the question and not typing random words so it was precisely your inference and not @bondegezou .
For those in need of light relief, The Traitors episode was a good one tonight.
Yes, alhough disappointed the Secret Traitor will be revealed so soon. Not having perfect knowledge of who was a traitor has been fascinating.
(Oh, and did anybody else notice tonight that somebody used the expression "secret traitor" who should not have known of the existence of a secret traitor - unless they were it?)
Trump will be very concerned that Ed Davey and Zack Polanski disapprove of today's regime change, and I'm sure he'll change course as a result.
Of course, Trump couldn't give a flying fuck what they (he probably doesn't know who they are), or Starmer, think, which is why Starmer isn't really bothering to say anything much. What's the point? I know many people don't like Starmer's approach, but really, what's the alternative approach that would have any worthwhile impact? There isn't one. He's probably right to save any disapprobation for when Trump takes over Canada or whatever.
Meanwhile, having hoped for a more peaceable 2026, I've already given up and have resorted to an exceptionally large whisky.
This morning’s U.S. action - including the kidnapping of a foreign leader (albeit not recognized as such by the West) and his wife, and their proposed arraignment in New York on very flimsy looking charges - is very obviously against international law per the UN charter.
But that’s nothing new.
Serbia (just bombing in that instance) and Libya were both allegedly justified on humanitarian grounds. Iraq, of course, was supposed to a near and present danger (subsequently disproven). Iran also falls under this latter category (nuclear proliferation).
These all seem arguable.
More iffily, Noriega really was engaged in hostile drug trafficking against the U.S. and other countries. Strictly speaking, Panama had also actually declared war on the United States. America cited self-defence as its own main excuse, which was not terribly convincing, although supported in the UN by both UK and France.
With Grenada, the People’s Revolutionary Government had murdered the elected PM, and unleashed bloody chaos. The U.S. argued that revolutionary Grenada was a security threat and justified the invasion on self-defence grounds. Pretty much nobody supported this one, although I think UK abstained rather than opposed outright in the key UN votes.
Venezuela seems less arguable than any of these, tbh. It sets an incredibly dangerous precedent which is essentially that big countries may invade smaller ones on only flimsy pretexts.
As for the (UK) local reactions: Davey’s is most accurate, Starmer’s is in line with EU/Canada/Aus/NZ/Japan etc, Badenoch’s is wibbling, and Farage’s is bizarre nonsense (“will give Russia and China something to think about”)
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
Circumstantial evidence I would say. ie observations or facts that support a hypothesis. So we observe the ease with which the US forces find Maduro; we note the US statement saying they got help from senior people in the Venezuelan government in finding Maduro; we note Trump's comment that Rubio had a long conversation with the Venezuelan VP; we observe how relaxed Trump is with the Venezuelan VP being acting president.
We don't have evidence of an actual deal being made to the Venezuelan VP to offer up Maduro in exchange for being allowed to be acting president, but those observations are consistent with that hypothesis.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
I studied logic as a speciality of my maths degree. That is not logic. It is speculation. It might be educated speculation, but definitely isn't logic.
"The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere." Ok expert, explain why this is speculation. The two sentences are truisms.
There is an implied third claim that, therefore, they got the information from the VP. That’s the problematic step.
That's your inference. It is not implied by the statements
You literally responded to the question ' Do you have any (evidence)?' with you statements. It is reasonable to assume you were answering the question and not typing random words so it was precisely your inference and not @bondegezou .
Just to make clear, I am being a pendant.
Be careful you don't accidentally strangle yourself with it.
From Twitter “Venezuela’s Acting President Delcy Rodriguez states that the country will never be a colony of any nation, adding that Venezuela will only ever have one President, Nicolás Maduro.”
Well, of course that is part of their problem, in that they insisted he only he should ever be president, even if he lost elections.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
Circumstantial evidence I would say. ie observations or facts that support a hypothesis. So we observe the ease with which the US forces find Maduro; we note the US statement saying they got help from senior people in the Venezuelan government in finding Maduro; we note Trump's comment that Rubio had a long conversation with the Venezuelan VP; we observe how relaxed Trump is with the Venezuelan VP being acting president.
We don't have evidence of an actual deal being made to the Venezuelan VP to offer up Maduro in exchange for being allowed to be acting president, but those observations are consistent with that hypothesis.
What Trump said Rubio said Rodriguez said, and what Rodriguez has said publicly are not very consistent with each other.
For those in need of light relief, The Traitors episode was a good one tonight.
Yes, alhough disappointed the Secret Traitor will be revealed so soon. Not having perfect knowledge of who was a traitor has been fascinating.
(Oh, and did anybody else notice tonight that somebody used the expression "secret traitor" who should not have known of the existence of a secret traitor - unless they were it?)
I did. And it wouldn't surprise me if it were her.
Annoying that my Uber Lux will be 20% more expensive in London.
Uber rewrites contracts with drivers to avoid paying UK’s new ‘taxi tax’
Hailing app will now act as agent rather than supplier outside London, avoiding VAT requirement
Uber has swerved paying millions of pounds to the UK exchequer under Rachel Reeves’s new “taxi tax” after the ride-hailing app rewrote contracts with its drivers.
The move came as rules announced in November’s budget took effect, which adjusted how VAT is payable on minicab fares and would have resulted in the whole Uber fare becoming subject to the 20% sales tax.
In November, Reeves told the Commons the changes would end up “protecting around £700m of tax revenue each year”.
However, updated terms issued to Uber drivers from January 2026 mean the technology firm will act as an agent, rather than as the supplier, of transport services outside London. The move means drivers make a contract directly with their passengers – so they must charge any VAT due on the fare, while Uber only adds VAT to its commission.
As most drivers are not thought to be making more than £90,000 in bookings a year, and therefore do not have to charge VAT, the majority of Uber fares outside London will avoid becoming more expensive, since the 20% sales tax will not apply.
The new contracts do not relate to London, where the agency model is not allowed under Transport for London rules. As a result, Uber passengers in the capital will pay VAT on their fares.
Uber’s change to the terms with its drivers has been expected since the budget announcement.
I did a similar case for a brothel in Edinburgh some years ago. HMRC sought to aggregate the earnings of the women with that of the establishment and claimed VAT on their payments. We argued, successfully, that they were independent contractors who paid for the use of the room, towels, condoms etc but that their earnings for their services did not form a part of the earnings of the establishment. Some of the women were seriously close to the VAT threshold themselves but HMRC didn't go after them.
Was it a hard decision?
We had one of the women who worked there give very detailed evidence about how it all worked. Unlike my opponent she did not embarrass easily. The Tribunal found her evidence convincing, unlike that of the HMRC officers which was mainly hypothesis. So, no, not really.
I remember a situation once, not a court case in fairness, where the police involved basically just tried to imply drug dealing based on some relatively minor possession, either because they were lazy or assumed it was sufficient if they hinted enough.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
Circumstantial evidence I would say. ie observations or facts that support a hypothesis. So we observe the ease with which the US forces find Maduro; we note the US statement saying they got help from senior people in the Venezuelan government in finding Maduro; we note Trump's comment that Rubio had a long conversation with the Venezuelan VP; we observe how relaxed Trump is with the Venezuelan VP being acting president.
We don't have evidence of an actual deal being made to the Venezuelan VP to offer up Maduro in exchange for being allowed to be acting president, but those observations are consistent with that hypothesis.
There isn't one. He's probably right to save any disapprobation for when Trump takes over Canada or whatever.
Starmer wouldn't say shit or do shit if that happened. They both just tongued him even harder when he was going on about Canada. It was a mortal insult to King Prince Charles but he was totally cucked and puckered up just like the rest of them.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
I studied logic as a speciality of my maths degree. That is not logic. It is speculation. It might be educated speculation, but definitely isn't logic.
"The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere." Ok expert, explain why this is speculation. The two sentences are truisms.
There is an implied third claim that, therefore, they got the information from the VP. That’s the problematic step.
BBC just said it was a CIA asset very close to the now ex-President.
That could be the VP! We’ll find out in 100 years perhaps!
Vance is a CIA asset ?
"The next war isn't going to be a cold war, it'll be a shooting war, a ballistic war ; over a rapidly-dwindling eco-system. The last of the world's energy, drinkable water, breathable air."
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
Circumstantial evidence I would say. ie observations or facts that support a hypothesis. So we observe the ease with which the US forces find Maduro; we note the US statement saying they got help from senior people in the Venezuelan government in finding Maduro; we note Trump's comment that Rubio had a long conversation with the Venezuelan VP; we observe how relaxed Trump is with the Venezuelan VP being acting president.
We don't have evidence of an actual deal being made to the Venezuelan VP to offer up Maduro in exchange for being allowed to be acting president, but those observations are consistent with that hypothesis.
Yes. I recall the otherwise well planned Turkish coup which succeeded in most respects bar one. They simply couldn't find Erdogan. He'd gone for a walk. Something he rarely did.
Standing up for international law means condemning leaders when they break it, whether that’s Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump.
That's not standing up for international law.
That's posturing about international law.
To stand up for something you have to take action and be willing to sacrifice something to do so.
So what is Ed Davey willing to sacrifice to stand up for international law.
We need to be at the UN seeking to sanction the fuckers.
Hahahaha. Good one.
I’m not laughing. Get the UN on it. The Axis countries will vote it down so it is only there to make the point.
Trump thinks he is World King. Do what he wants, with no come back. He needs to be given the shot across the bows that Gilead has few friends.
All his life he's thought that bluster, bullying, and willingness to push boundaries works, and for the most part he's been proven right. A once very independent minded GOP is now wholly subsurvient to him, and he's got a green light from the courts to use presidential power pretty much however he sees fit - any consequences, if at all, will come a long way down the line for him, and he's already very old.
An unfettered President is a scary thing in many ways.
Machado, the Nobel Prize winning opposition leader, is implying that things are in motion for the opposition to take over in Caracas, but there’s little evidence from reporting in the city of an uprising. The news is focused on Trump’s press conference, because that’s an easy thing for the journalists to follow, but what matters is what’s actually happening on the ground in Venezuela. Is the old regime basically still in control, just with Rodriguez replacing Maduro? Can the opposition wrest control of the country from them? Has Rodriguez done a deal, or is willing to do a deal, with the Trump administration that leaves her in control but has some sops to the US?
But, as with Iran’s protests, it’s hard to know what is actually happening.
So, Trump made a bunch of claims at the press conference that seem unrelated to reality. Why?
He claimed that Rubio had talked to Rodríguez and that she was basically capitulating. Rodríguez has since said very different things to the Venezuelan people. So, was Rodríguez playing for time, or did Trump not understand and leapt to assumptions, or did Rubio mislead Trump?
Yes.
Quite probably all of those were true.
Rodriguez almost certainly is playing for time.
Trump almost certainly did not understand fully and went with whatever suited his agenda.
And Rubio almost certainly spun things in the most sycophantic way he could to satisfy his boss.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
Circumstantial evidence I would say. ie observations or facts that support a hypothesis. So we observe the ease with which the US forces find Maduro; we note the US statement saying they got help from senior people in the Venezuelan government in finding Maduro; we note Trump's comment that Rubio had a long conversation with the Venezuelan VP; we observe how relaxed Trump is with the Venezuelan VP being acting president.
We don't have evidence of an actual deal being made to the Venezuelan VP to offer up Maduro in exchange for being allowed to be acting president, but those observations are consistent with that hypothesis.
What Trump said Rubio said Rodriguez said, and what Rodriguez has said publicly are not very consistent with each other.
Which doesn't invalidate the hypothesis of course.
Is it the most probable? Who the heck knows, but excellent US planning could have been aided by internal assistance (even if just the 'look the other way' kind).
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
I studied logic as a speciality of my maths degree. That is not logic. It is speculation. It might be educated speculation, but definitely isn't logic.
"The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere." Ok expert, explain why this is speculation. The two sentences are truisms.
There is an implied third claim that, therefore, they got the information from the VP. That’s the problematic step.
BBC just said it was a CIA asset very close to the now ex-President.
That could be the VP! We’ll find out in 100 years perhaps!
The father of Rodriguez was tortured to death by the then Venezuelan secret service, likely under the direction of or at least collaboration with the CIA. Not impossible of course but it would take some level of stone cold calculation for her to work with the current day Yanquis.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
I studied logic as a speciality of my maths degree. That is not logic. It is speculation. It might be educated speculation, but definitely isn't logic.
"The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere." Ok expert, explain why this is speculation. The two sentences are truisms.
There is an implied third claim that, therefore, they got the information from the VP. That’s the problematic step.
BBC just said it was a CIA asset very close to the now ex-President.
That could be the VP! We’ll find out in 100 years perhaps!
The father of Rodriguez was tortured to death by the then Venezuelan secret service, likely under the direction of or at least collaboration with the CIA. Not impossible of course but it would take some level of stone cold calculation for her to work with the current day Yanquis.
People have done worse for power, though personally I'd think there'd be no need to engage with the VP beforehand on this one, took risky for them.
There isn't one. He's probably right to save any disapprobation for when Trump takes over Canada or whatever.
Starmer wouldn't say shit or do shit if that happened. They both just tongued him even harder when he was going on about Canada. It was a mortal insult to King Prince Charles but he was totally cucked and puckered up just like the rest of them.
I am forming the impression that Venezuelan opinion, at Maduro's capture, ranges from indifference, via quiet satisfaction, to sheer delight.
Opposing this is certainly not a hill that the UK needs to be fighting upon.
Venezuela don't have that many friends who don't already hate the USA I expect (as opposed to, say, Libya, where Gaddafi had no friends), so a 'tut tut' head shake at the wider implications and maybe some chiding words is probably all most want to do. Though it's 'allies' of the USA who seem more worried about it than opponents, which says something about current relations.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
Circumstantial evidence I would say. ie observations or facts that support a hypothesis. So we observe the ease with which the US forces find Maduro; we note the US statement saying they got help from senior people in the Venezuelan government in finding Maduro; we note Trump's comment that Rubio had a long conversation with the Venezuelan VP; we observe how relaxed Trump is with the Venezuelan VP being acting president.
We don't have evidence of an actual deal being made to the Venezuelan VP to offer up Maduro in exchange for being allowed to be acting president, but those observations are consistent with that hypothesis.
What Trump said Rubio said Rodriguez said, and what Rodriguez has said publicly are not very consistent with each other.
Rodriguez has no interest in admitting to be an American agent obviously, while the Americans probably don't care if she admits or not.
I would look at whether the observations and facts fit other hypotheses. I think they do. So the Venezuelan government could be compromised by American spies helping them to locate Maduro. Independently the Trump Administration decided Rodriguez was the best replacement for Maduro, or at least they weren't going to prevent her taking over, but no deal was made. I don't have a feel for which hypothesis is more probable but I think both are plausible.
I would also look at whether there is any evidence contradicting the deal hypothesis. As far as I am aware, not.
I know some very charming Venezuelans. They have been unable to travel to Venezuela for some years. I’m sure they are delighted by today’s turn of events.
(That’s not a justification).
I forgot to mention that Polanski’s interjection - “a breach of international human rights law” - is risible.
Er… what? That’s what Vice Presidents are for, to take over if you lose the President.
But they need to get the sitting president out of the way first. Sometimes that needs a little bit of outside assistance.
I don’t think you can cast shade on a VP doing exactly what their job is meant to be without some sort of evidence of an actual conspiracy. Do you have any?
The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere.
That’s not evidence. That’s speculation.
It's neither evidence nor speculation, it is logic
I studied logic as a speciality of my maths degree. That is not logic. It is speculation. It might be educated speculation, but definitely isn't logic.
"The US forces knew exactly where to find Maduro.
They got the gen from somewhere." Ok expert, explain why this is speculation. The two sentences are truisms.
There is an implied third claim that, therefore, they got the information from the VP. That’s the problematic step.
BBC just said it was a CIA asset very close to the now ex-President.
That could be the VP! We’ll find out in 100 years perhaps!
The father of Rodriguez was tortured to death by the then Venezuelan secret service, likely under the direction of or at least collaboration with the CIA. Not impossible of course but it would take some level of stone cold calculation for her to work with the current day Yanquis.
Indeed. It is easy to underestimate nationalism. The Chavezistas may be evil, but they may also believe in Venezuelan sovereignty and in fighting the good fight against the US.
Apparently the Cuban government could collapse as a result of what's happened in Venezuela, because Cuba have been relying on large quantities of oil from Venezuela, half of which they've been using to keep the lights on, and the other half to exchange for hard currency. This was according to someone on Radio 4's One O'clock News today.
If the U.S. annexes Greenland, Denmark should seize back the U.S. Virgin Islands, which were only ceded to the United States under the condition that it relinquish any claims to Greenland.
Apparently the Cuban government could collapse as a result of what's happened in Venezuela, because Cuba have been relying on large quantities of oil from Venezuela, half of which they've been using to keep the lights on, and the other half to exchange for hard currency. This was according to someone on Radio 4's One O'clock News today.
Well, that might happen, if Venezuela stops supplying oil to Cuba, but currently the Venezuelan regime is unchanged and there’s no indication— yet — of any such change in policy.
If true, Starmer will in fact need to come off the fence.
There are many fences, however. Get off this one, then there's another over there. And boy, the one just beside that one is a doozy. Then, the next fence....
I assume Denmark would trigger Article 5. Which formally ends NATO. Trump announces that he has just spoken to Putin and the Europeans are the bad guys now.
"Who else knows the plan? Me and you, and of course, Darling, Field Marshall Haugue, and Field Marshell's Haugue's wife, All her friends, her friends servants, her friends servants tennis partners, and some man I bumped into in the mess last week"
Are we willing to pay the price of being fully autonomous from the US?
We're not even willing to increase defence spending just a little bit as it is.
The complete lack of urgency to increase defence spending is one area where Starmer is unquestionably fucking up big time.
He is, however, increasing defence spending. That’s a step in the right direction, no?
Defence Resource DEL increases from £37.5bn in 24-25 to £42.0bn in 28-29 an increase of a total of 12% over 4 years above inflation. Defence Capital DEL increases from £22.7bn to £31.5bn over the same period, an increase of a total of 39% above inflation over 4 years.
Combined this is an increase from £60.2bn to £73.5bn, or 22% over 4 years, about 5% each year compounded, above inflation.
It's more than I thought, but less than is required.
The whole 'increase defence spending' push is one of these very simplistic, easy-sounding bandwagons that is, frankly, a terrible idea.
We do not need to 'increase defence spending' - we need to decide upon a set of military capabilities (a few examples being the ability to protect the British Isles from missile attack, a nuclear weapon of last resort, the naval might to police our territorial waters, enough of a standing army to do xxxx, the ability to project xxxx into a foreign field of battle...), then assess what we need to do and how much we need to spend to get there.
The MOD (in common with most Government departments) is a disaster. Putting 'increased defence spending' in there without reform would be the equivalent of putting it on a bonfire.
All that is fair criticism, but for a non-specialist like myself it would be hard to judge all the detail, and any reasonable assessment I've seen of Britain's defence needs concludes that - along with reform - there needs to be more spent.
So the spending total is something that I can look at and judge whether it is happening. And it is, a little, but not at a pace commensurate with the changes that are happening in the world and the urgency of our defence needs.
That's why we need to know a set of political outcomes (or in this case military capabilities) that we need, and work out how much we must spend to get there.
On JRM's podcast, he said in his Government efficiency brief he tried to get rid of a Cabinet Office defence comittee that was costing some £50mn a year, as it was an exact replica of one already reporting to the PM. A very annoyed civil servant told him he should keep the duplicate committee because 'it counts toward our 2% military spending'. Ask the MOD to spend 3 or 4 percent, and they will spend it. It doesn't mean we will be any better defended.
Comments
https://bsky.app/profile/capitolhunters.bsky.social/post/3mbjtjr3h3c2h
1. The UK has little interest in Venezuela
2. Annoying Trump could be be damaging in several practical ways for no benefit.
3. The principle of domestic sovereignty does matter very much to the UK, eg in Ukraine, Falklands, Greenland.
While I accept his statement will balance those three viewpoints, I would like to see a bit more about (3) and less about (1).
What with that account, and Trumps truth social or whatever it’s called, it’s like living in an American film version of life. Attacks on other countries filmed with rock music backing tracks and special effects. Mental
Combined this is an increase from £60.2bn to £73.5bn, or 22% over 4 years, about 5% each year compounded, above inflation.
It's more than I thought, but less than is required.
The tournament has had plenty of up and downs and shock results.
Few people would have predicted the final 4.
They got the gen from somewhere.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=GB
Then of course there is the argument that this is Rubio's project, and maybe he'll convince Trump to sign off on something. Strange though it might be too think, it's probably the case that Trump has less control of his administration than Starmer does of his ministry. There will be a lot of manoeuvring between different figures that we won't see.
We do not need to 'increase defence spending' - we need to decide upon a set of military capabilities (a few examples being the ability to protect the British Isles from missile attack, a nuclear weapon of last resort, the naval might to police our territorial waters, enough of a standing army to do xxxx, the ability to project xxxx into a foreign field of battle...), then assess what we need to do and how much we need to spend to get there.
The MOD (in common with most Government departments) is a disaster. Putting 'increased defence spending' in there without reform would be the equivalent of putting it on a bonfire.
Labour have decided to alienate all their voters in pursuit of those who will never vote for them.
Its a political kamikazi mission.
Kami = god
Kaze 風 = wind
They got the gen from somewhere."
Ok expert, explain why this is speculation. The two sentences are truisms.
So the spending total is something that I can look at and judge whether it is happening. And it is, a little, but not at a pace commensurate with the changes that are happening in the world and the urgency of our defence needs.
He claimed that Rubio had talked to Rodríguez and that she was basically capitulating. Rodríguez has since said very different things to the Venezuelan people. So, was Rodríguez playing for time, or did Trump not understand and leapt to assumptions, or did Rubio mislead Trump?
Obviously there would be better and worse ways of spending the money, but simply buying a bit more of everything that Britain currently has wouldn't be the worst use of the money.
Job number one should be to expel US troops from their UK bases.
Sure, it needs to be implemented, but part of that is it needs funding.
Simply saying there's no point increasing defence spending because it will be wasted is not serious.
Availability is another bonfire. At times recently the RN has only a single SSN operational, and far too many of the surface fleet are spending years out of action for maintenance or refit. Money has to spent making sure the kit we already have is there to be used when necessary.
(Oh, and did anybody else notice tonight that somebody used the expression "secret traitor" who should not have known of the existence of a secret traitor - unless they were it?)
Opposing this is certainly not a hill that the UK needs to be fighting upon.
Of course, Trump couldn't give a flying fuck what they (he probably doesn't know who they are), or Starmer, think, which is why Starmer isn't really bothering to say anything much. What's the point? I know many people don't like Starmer's approach, but really, what's the alternative approach that would have any worthwhile impact? There isn't one. He's probably right to save any disapprobation for when Trump takes over Canada or whatever.
Meanwhile, having hoped for a more peaceable 2026, I've already given up and have resorted to an exceptionally large whisky.
But that’s nothing new.
Serbia (just bombing in that instance) and Libya were both allegedly justified on humanitarian grounds. Iraq, of course, was supposed to a near and present danger (subsequently disproven). Iran also falls under this latter category (nuclear proliferation).
These all seem arguable.
More iffily, Noriega really was engaged in hostile drug trafficking against the U.S. and other countries. Strictly speaking, Panama had also actually declared war on the United States. America cited self-defence as its own main excuse, which was not terribly convincing, although supported in the UN by both UK and France.
With Grenada, the People’s Revolutionary Government had murdered the elected PM, and unleashed bloody chaos. The U.S. argued that revolutionary Grenada was a security threat and justified the invasion on self-defence grounds. Pretty much nobody supported this one, although I think UK abstained rather than opposed outright in the key UN votes.
Venezuela seems less arguable than any of these, tbh.
It sets an incredibly dangerous precedent which is essentially that big countries may invade smaller ones on only flimsy pretexts.
As for the (UK) local reactions: Davey’s is most accurate, Starmer’s is in line with EU/Canada/Aus/NZ/Japan etc, Badenoch’s is wibbling, and Farage’s is bizarre nonsense (“will give Russia and China something to think about”)
We don't have evidence of an actual deal being made to the Venezuelan VP to offer up Maduro in exchange for being allowed to be acting president, but those observations are consistent with that hypothesis.
Trump thinks he is World King. Do what he wants, with no come back. He needs to be given the shot across the bows that Gilead has few friends.
And it wouldn't surprise me if it were her.
Unless Trump chooses to invade Australia in the next 25 minutes.
They simply couldn't find Erdogan.
He'd gone for a walk. Something he rarely did.
An unfettered President is a scary thing in many ways.
We might be in with a shout.
But, as with Iran’s protests, it’s hard to know what is actually happening.
Quite probably all of those were true.
Rodriguez almost certainly is playing for time.
Trump almost certainly did not understand fully and went with whatever suited his agenda.
And Rubio almost certainly spun things in the most sycophantic way he could to satisfy his boss.
Is it the most probable? Who the heck knows, but excellent US planning could have been aided by internal assistance (even if just the 'look the other way' kind).
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37804199/british-forces-bomb-isis-syria-typhoon-jets-joint-airstrike-france/
FOX NEWS: What are your expectations when you get briefings from senior Trump administration officials in the coming days?
GALLEGO: Well, they're just gonna lie
https://x.com/atrupar/status/2007519028911149139
https://x.com/KatieMiller/status/2007541679293944266
I would look at whether the observations and facts fit other hypotheses. I think they do. So the Venezuelan government could be compromised by American spies helping them to locate Maduro. Independently the Trump Administration decided Rodriguez was the best replacement for Maduro, or at least they weren't going to prevent her taking over, but no deal was made. I don't have a feel for which hypothesis is more probable but I think both are plausible.
I would also look at whether there is any evidence contradicting the deal hypothesis. As far as I am aware, not.
(That’s not a justification).
I forgot to mention that Polanski’s interjection - “a breach of international human rights law” - is risible.
Whenever the MoD rattle the mendicant's bowl, remember they've still got plenty of money for pointless shit like this.
What should it be?
Weather doesn't look great though.
Didn't jinx it...
Me and you, and of course, Darling,
Field Marshall Haugue, and Field Marshell's Haugue's wife,
All her friends, her friends servants,
her friends servants tennis partners,
and some man I bumped into in the mess last week"
I have no doubt Stephen Miller has that on his to do list. His wife is almost as bad. No, that really isn't possible is it?
On JRM's podcast, he said in his Government efficiency brief he tried to get rid of a Cabinet Office defence comittee that was costing some £50mn a year, as it was an exact replica of one already reporting to the PM. A very annoyed civil servant told him he should keep the duplicate committee because 'it counts toward our 2% military spending'. Ask the MOD to spend 3 or 4 percent, and they will spend it. It doesn't mean we will be any better defended.