FWIW, I can see the USA somehow gaming/bribing Greenland into becoming a de facto or de jure US territory, I cannot see it for Canada.
Canada is much too big to invade and meaningfully hold all of it against its will, let alone the fact a majority of Americans don't support that, and even if initially easy it'd require a sizeable occupation force. It's also too populated to be organised as anything other than a US State, and probably multiple states given its size, which would be heavily Democrat (except possibly Alberta) and tend to kick the Republicans out of controlling both the Senate and House of Representatives.
So, no, it's not happening.
I could, however, see Canada conceding a US base or two in the far North, or something similar, maybe to complement Greenland, which presumably is what Trump is really after - and he'd no doubt declare that as a success.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
It's not an either/or situation. We need both a rules based international order and high defence spending. The big mistake that was made after 1989 was the idea of a 'peace dividend' from the end of the Cold War. It was obvious then that, even without Russia turning its back on the West, the world was going to become a far more dangerous place because the balance of power was gone and the need for each side to keep their satellites in check was gone with it.
Without a rules based international order we are all screwed. The new reality is we need high defence spending (a lot more than 3% of GDP) and we also need clever defence spending. Ukraine has shown that might on paper does not translate into success on the battlefield. We ned to learn the lessons of the new styles of warfare. But we also need to try and maintain the western ideal of a rules system based on national sovereignty to underpin the whole thing.
A rules based order can only exist if there also exist powers with sufficient military strength to stand behind it. The US is no longer one of the powers, whileTrump or his coterie remain in power, and Europe doesn't as yet have sufficient military strength.
For now, China is still paying lip service to a rules based order, for whatever that's worth..
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1352265.shtml China always opposes the use or threat of force, as well as any imposition of one country's will on another, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Sunday when speaking of the situation in Venezuela, according to Xinhua News Agency.
Wang, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, made the remarks when holding the Seventh Round of China-Pakistan Foreign Ministers' Strategic Dialogue with Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar in Beijing.
Wang said the current international situation is more volatile and intertwined, with unilateral bullying becoming increasingly severe.
The sudden change of situation in Venezuela has drawn high attention from the international community, Wang said.
"We never believe that any country can play the role of world policeman, nor do we agree that any country can claim itself to be an international judge," Wang said, adding that the sovereignty and security of all countries should be fully protected by international law.
Following the US' large-scale strike against Venezuela and its seizing of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores and their transfer out of the country, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on Sunday that the US' move is in clear violation of international law, basic norms of international relations, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter..
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
What a f*cking stupid post that is.
The rules based international order has served us pretty well all our lives... Until it started to be ignored by Putin, Netanyahu, and now Trump in the past few years.
The idea that Trump and his law of the jungle is somehow good for America is mad. The UK benefited from the post War World order, as did Europe generally, in large part because it was good for America too. America had an interest in mostly maintaining the rules because it benefited from them.
If we had been following the rules of the rules-based order, we wouldn’t have intervened in Kosovo.
FWIW, I can see the USA somehow gaming/bribing Greenland into becoming a de facto or de jure US territory, I cannot see it for Canada.
Canada is much too big to invade and meaningfully hold all of it against its will, let alone the fact a majority of Americans don't support that, and even if initially easy it'd require a sizeable occupation force. It's also too populated to be organised as anything other than a US State, and probably multiple states given its size, which would be heavily Democrat (except possibly Alberta) and tend to kick the Republicans out of controlling both the Senate and House of Representatives.
So, no, it's not happening.
I could, however, see Canada conceding a US base or two in the far North, or something similar, maybe to complement Greenland, which presumably is what Trump is really after - and he'd no doubt declare that as a success.
I don't think Trump is after anything other than making the news and being the centre of attention.
The idea that Trump and his law of the jungle is somehow good for America is mad. The UK benefited from the post War World order, as did Europe generally, in large part because it was good for America too. America had an interest in mostly maintaining the rules because it benefited from them.
I think a lot of what drives the behaviour of the current US administration, a reversion to US exceptionalism and isolationism, is the slowly dawning realisation that no matter what they do China will surpass them in almost all ways this century, and soon in many areas. So the US is acting up, one last go at exerting their fading power before it becomes ineffective. They actually need more alliances, and multilateralism, to attempt to rein in China, and to a lesser extent Russia and India, but the US is trashing the prospects of that. The rest of the world, particularly the democratic bits, had better learn the lessons and act fast.
This is a kinda crazy opinion though, given that the looming demographic crisis in China is likely to limit its period of international strength, whereas the historical ability of the US to incorporate immigrants as citizens means they have the potential to avoid such a demographic crisis, and along with allies, more than match China.
And gives Kemi the balance of power in a hung parliament
It’s actually Farage that holds the balance of power. Maybe that is why Labour have been chumming up to the racists recently?
I would suggest Starmer would be more likely to do a deal with Kemi than Farage, though he would prefer to deal with Davey than either.
Farage could almost certainly only get the Tories and the DUP and TUV to back him on a vote of confidence and only a Jenrick led Tories would be certain to back him on such a vote
The important thing about Greenland is making sure that Putin doesn't try to take it over.
That's already taken care of. It's simply not an even semi-credible excuse for the US seizing it.
They had a Danish or Greenlandic politician on Irish radio this lunchtime, and this was the thing they were grappling with. The US says they need Greenland for its defence, but they already have a military base there, Denmark is an ally, and Denmark is more than willing to cooperate about any other practical steps in terms of bases and defence cooperation to improve the defence of Greenland and the Artic more broadly.
It's concerning to hear politicians so bewildered by what is going on. We're really through the looking glass now.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Here's a question:
What had the Rules Based International Order ever done to stop or inhibit the huge trade in illegal drugs in South/Central America and all the associated crime and misery it was responsible for?
This is a kinda crazy opinion though, given that the looming demographic crisis in China is likely to limit its period of international strength, whereas the historical ability of the US to incorporate immigrants as citizens means they have the potential to avoid such a demographic crisis, and along with allies, more than match China.
The bit "along with allies" is the key. The US is acting as though it doesn't need allies, but it does, and more than ever.
The idea that Trump and his law of the jungle is somehow good for America is mad. The UK benefited from the post War World order, as did Europe generally, in large part because it was good for America too. America had an interest in mostly maintaining the rules because it benefited from them.
I think a lot of what drives the behaviour of the current US administration, a reversion to US exceptionalism and isolationism, is the slowly dawning realisation that no matter what they do China will surpass them in almost all ways this century, and soon in many areas. So the US is acting up, one last go at exerting their fading power before it becomes ineffective. They actually need more alliances, and multilateralism, to attempt to rein in China, and to a lesser extent Russia and India, but the US is trashing the prospects of that. The rest of the world, particularly the democratic bits, had better learn the lessons and act fast.
This is a kinda crazy opinion though, given that the looming demographic crisis in China is likely to limit its period of international strength, whereas the historical ability of the US to incorporate immigrants as citizens means they have the potential to avoid such a demographic crisis, and along with allies, more than match China.
The USA, under Trump, is throwing away its strengths, in favour of the belief it can exercise hegemony through brute force.
Essentially, the administration 's view was expressed 2,500 years ago:
"We shall not trouble you with specious pretences—either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us—and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Spartans [ … ] or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do as they will and the weak suffer what they must."
And, we know that turned out in the end for Athens.
The USA could easily take Greenland by brute force, but at the expense of losing a load of allies. It's not in their strategic interest, but the current administration does think in terms of strategic interest. It only thinks in terms of brute force.
One should not make a fetish of international law (as the more precious members of the legal profession tend to), but there is advantage to showing restraint, and practising co-operation with other nations.
President Donald J. Trump: “Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil, they’re not getting any of that now. Cuba is literally ready to fall, and you have a lot of great Cuban-Americans who are going to be very happy about this.”
Cuba was apparently providing personal security to Maduro, because he didn’t trust Venezuelans to do it.
Final score: Cuban soldiers 0, American soldiers 32.
Turns out he was right. The USA must have had help at a very senior level in Venezuela to depose Maduro.
Do you read where Sandpit gets his information? Take a look at 'Robby Starbuck's site' where he denounces companies for being 'woke' (Which includes Walmart Toyota Harley Davidson Coors Jack Daniels Boeing etc etc) He's just a Trumpian right wing headbanger who tells nutters what they want to hear!
If you don’t like my Trump-supporter source, I also have others.
“32 Cubans killed during US attack on Venezuela, Cuban government says “In our opening post, we mentioned that Cuba said that 32 of its citizens had been killed in the US operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, in Venezuela and bring them to America. We can bring you a bit more information about this now.
“The Cuban government said the 32 people who were killed were members of the Cuban armed forces and intelligence agencies, with two days of national mourning declared.
“A government statement read:
“Our compatriots fulfilled their duty with dignity and heroism and fell, after fierce resistance, in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of bombings on the facilities. “Cuba, a strong ally of Venezuela, has provided some security for Maduro since he came to power. It was not clear how many Cubans were guarding the Venezuelan president when they died and how many may were killed elsewhere.”
I am appalled at the US seizing the President of another country and then indicating that they did this because they want its oil. It is utterly disgraceful and every bit as bad as Russia's SMO (or illegal invasion) of Ukraine.
But as a military operation this is up there with Entebbe. An astonishing achievement.
This is a kinda crazy opinion though, given that the looming demographic crisis in China is likely to limit its period of international strength, whereas the historical ability of the US to incorporate immigrants as citizens means they have the potential to avoid such a demographic crisis, and along with allies, more than match China.
The bit "along with allies" is the key. The US is acting as though it doesn't need allies, but it does, and more than ever.
Taking the National Security Strategy at face value, the key issue is that Europeans - excepting Orban et al - are not regarded as allies. Trump would be more comfortable cutting a deal with Russia than being in NATO.
The people in charge of the US are anti-democrats, more comfortable doing business with dictators.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Here's a question:
What had the Rules Based International Order ever done to stop or inhibit the huge trade in illegal drugs in South/Central America and all the associated crime and misery it was responsible for?
What did the US authorities do to curtail the sale of Fentanyl and Oxycontin to prescription drug addicts and the assiociated misery it was responsible for?
By the end of the week Maduro will likely have had the votes of China and Russia and Columbia on the UN Security Council and probably a majority of the UN General Assembly in his favour and condemning the actions of Trump and the US in capturing him. His VP is now acting President of Venezuela and remains loyal to him, he can also portray himself as a martyr for the left against Trump in a US jail.
Has Trump really thought through all the above? Capturing Maduro was not enough, he has to follow through on his commitment to create a new government of Venezuela and ignore condemnation from much of the international community
President Donald J. Trump: “Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil, they’re not getting any of that now. Cuba is literally ready to fall, and you have a lot of great Cuban-Americans who are going to be very happy about this.”
Cuba was apparently providing personal security to Maduro, because he didn’t trust Venezuelans to do it.
Final score: Cuban soldiers 0, American soldiers 32.
Turns out he was right. The USA must have had help at a very senior level in Venezuela to depose Maduro.
Do you read where Sandpit gets his information? Take a look at 'Robby Starbuck's site' where he denounces companies for being 'woke' (Which includes Walmart Toyota Harley Davidson Coors Jack Daniels Boeing etc etc) He's just a Trumpian right wing headbanger who tells nutters what they want to hear!
If you don’t like my Trump-supporter source, I also have others.
“32 Cubans killed during US attack on Venezuela, Cuban government says “In our opening post, we mentioned that Cuba said that 32 of its citizens had been killed in the US operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, in Venezuela and bring them to America. We can bring you a bit more information about this now.
“The Cuban government said the 32 people who were killed were members of the Cuban armed forces and intelligence agencies, with two days of national mourning declared.
“A government statement read:
“Our compatriots fulfilled their duty with dignity and heroism and fell, after fierce resistance, in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of bombings on the facilities. “Cuba, a strong ally of Venezuela, has provided some security for Maduro since he came to power. It was not clear how many Cubans were guarding the Venezuelan president when they died and how many may were killed elsewhere.”
I am appalled at the US seizing the President of another country and then indicating that they did this because they want its oil. It is utterly disgraceful and every bit as bad as Russia's SMO (or illegal invasion) of Ukraine.
But as a military operation this is up there with Entebbe. An astonishing achievement.
Calling it "every bit as bad as Russia's SMO" is morally bankrupt.
And gives Kemi the balance of power in a hung parliament
Does she go fash or rainbow coalition?
Or abstain
Unlikely on those numbers.
On those numbers PM Farage leading a minority Reform government would be likely but he could not get any bills through without consulting Kemi first and Tory support
I presume she's a better singer than geo-strategist. Greenland (pop 57,000) declaring independence would be tantamount to inviting the US to takeover completely.
By the end of the week Maduro will likely have had the votes of China and Russia and Columbia on the UN Security Council and probably a majority of the UN General Assembly in his favour and condemning the actions of Trump and the US in capturing him. His VP is now acting President of Venezuela and remains loyal to him, he can also portray himself as a martyr for the left against Trump in a US jail.
Has Trump really thought through all the above? Capturing Maduro was not enough, he has to follow through on his commitment to create a new government of Venezuela and ignore condemnation from much of the international community
And gives Kemi the balance of power in a hung parliament
It’s actually Farage that holds the balance of power. Maybe that is why Labour have been chumming up to the racists recently?
I would suggest Starmer would be more likely to do a deal with Kemi than Farage, though he would prefer to deal with Davey than either
But does Kemi become junior partner in a MEGA coalition? I suspect she's already done for and it would be Jenrick and that would be a resounding yes.
Jenrick would jump at the chance to be Farage's Chancellor or Deputy PM, Kemi would be OK with voting bill by bill but not joining Farage's government and maybe just giving Reform confidence and supply. Cleverly could even do a deal with Starmer though most likely would abstain and vote bill by bill as Kemi would
One last take on Venezuela from a different angle; Fraser Nelson (from Substack) on why getting rich off its oil won’t work likeTrump seems to think it does. (Aka the one thing worse than unashamed imperialism is incompetent unashamed imperialism)
I greatly respect the mental abilities of British voters, but I would be surprised if, on December 31st, they had anticipated the US capture of Maduro and Farage's response to it.
And gives Kemi the balance of power in a hung parliament
Not really, because that implies she has some kind of discretion which might involve keeping Reform out of power. She wouldn't. Inconceivable that a Tory leader in those circs would do a deal with Labour and LibDems. Just a question of whether it would be confidence and supply, or a coalition, with Reform. Suspect the former, and let the Faragists self-destruct.
And gives Kemi the balance of power in a hung parliament
Not really, because that implies she has some kind of discretion which might involve keeping Reform out of power. She wouldn't. Inconceivable that a Tory leader in those circs would do a deal with Labour and LibDems. Just a question of whether it would be confidence and supply, or a coalition, with Reform. Suspect the former, and let the Faragists self-destruct.
Probably, though I would not completely rule out a Cleverly led Tories doing a deal with Labour and the LDs to keep Farage from No 10 if combined they had more seats than Reform
I presume she's a better singer than geo-strategist. Greenland (pop 57,000) declaring independence would be tantamount to inviting the US to takeover completely.
Greenland asking to join Canada would be funny, though.
If there is something else we can rely on other than the past and what we can draw from it, right up to the previous millisecond, I would love to know what it is.
The past is one thing we can use.
Other things we can use include:
Logic Intuition Speculation Predictions Etc
Plenty of things we can use when thinking about the future, not just the past. The future is informed by the past, but not a mirror of it. Some of those are related to each other.
No.
Logic applies reason to experiences, ie history. Logic itself is its history from Aristotle to Frege and beyond.
Intuition and speculation essentially does the same.
Prediction applies the principle of induction from experiences, ie history or 'the past', to imagine and order possible futures.
I agree we have no reason to think the future is a mirror of the past. But that is pretty obvious when you look at history (it being the only thing you can look at).
I presume she's a better singer than geo-strategist. Greenland (pop 57,000) declaring independence would be tantamount to inviting the US to takeover completely.
Greenland asking to join Canada would be funny, though.
Greenland is only a few miles from Canada. It's quite a distance from the USA.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Here's a question:
What had the Rules Based International Order ever done to stop or inhibit the huge trade in illegal drugs in South/Central America and all the associated crime and misery it was responsible for?
What did the US authorities do to curtail the sale of Fentanyl and Oxycontin to prescription drug addicts and the assiociated misery it was responsible for?
President Donald J. Trump: “Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil, they’re not getting any of that now. Cuba is literally ready to fall, and you have a lot of great Cuban-Americans who are going to be very happy about this.”
I thought Cuba exported rum and had a decent tourist trade.
It's a very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
Back to the 50s. It just needs Marlon Brando to take a girl there as a bet and sing her a song.
Cuba in the 50s was more free than Cuba today.
Vassal of the US, repressive dictatorship, rampant corruption. I'm sure the people there have higher aspirations than a return to that. Let's hope they get a say in it.
The Tsarist regieme in Russia was far less corrupt, murderous etc than the Bolsheviks or Putin.
I think we're all aware of Soviet control over Eastern Europe (except Greece) between 1945 and 1990, but it seems that, over the centuries, Russian and/or Soviet troops have been, ah, "involved" in some way in every "western" European country, except for Iceland, Portugal, and the Republic of Ireland. According to my reading:
Finland (Russian Empire 1809-1918) Norway's Finnmark region (occupation 1944-1945, also commercial activity and settlement in Svalbard to this day, though no military involvement) Denmark's Bornholm island (occupation 1945-1946) Sweden's eastern seaboard (occupation 1808-1809, naval and marine attacks in 1719-21) Germany's western states (some degree of occupation 1813-1814, Suvorov's transit 1800, East Germany of course was Soviet satellite 1945-1989) Netherlands (occupation 1799 (Walcheren), 1813 (entire country)) Belgium (occupation 1814) Luxembourg (probable occupation 1814, but not explicitly on maps I've seen!) UK's Jersey/Guernsey (troops temporarily stationed 1799-1800) France's northeastern regions (occupation 1814 (Tsar Alexander made it all the way to Paris!) and 1815-1818, some participation WW1 1915-1917) Switzerland (occupation 1799-1800 - General Suvorov crossed the Alps!) Liechtenstein (Suvorov's transit back home 1800) Austria (Suvorov's transit 1799, occupation of northeast and Vienna 1945-1955) Italy northern and southern regions (occupation 1799, including Vatican, Suvorov up north (eg. Milan, Turin), Admiral Ushakov in the south (eg. Rome, Naples)) Spain (some participation Civil War 1936-1939) Greece various islands, and part of mainland (eg. occupation Ionians 1800-1807, Salonika WW1 1916-1917)
“Bistro” is Russian for ‘quickly’, and those fast (for the time) food restaurants in Paris were created during the Russian occupation and got their name from the Russian soldiers’ habit of shouting ‘bistro!’ if their food didn’t quickly arrive.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
You could say the same about any sort of rules, from speed limits through laws against murder. That it is utopian idealism to expect that everyone will follow every rule isn’t an argument for not having any rules.
President Donald J. Trump: “Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil, they’re not getting any of that now. Cuba is literally ready to fall, and you have a lot of great Cuban-Americans who are going to be very happy about this.”
Cuba was apparently providing personal security to Maduro, because he didn’t trust Venezuelans to do it.
Final score: Cuban soldiers 0, American soldiers 32.
Turns out he was right. The USA must have had help at a very senior level in Venezuela to depose Maduro.
Do you read where Sandpit gets his information? Take a look at 'Robby Starbuck's site' where he denounces companies for being 'woke' (Which includes Walmart Toyota Harley Davidson Coors Jack Daniels Boeing etc etc) He's just a Trumpian right wing headbanger who tells nutters what they want to hear!
If you don’t like my Trump-supporter source, I also have others.
“32 Cubans killed during US attack on Venezuela, Cuban government says “In our opening post, we mentioned that Cuba said that 32 of its citizens had been killed in the US operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, in Venezuela and bring them to America. We can bring you a bit more information about this now.
“The Cuban government said the 32 people who were killed were members of the Cuban armed forces and intelligence agencies, with two days of national mourning declared.
“A government statement read:
“Our compatriots fulfilled their duty with dignity and heroism and fell, after fierce resistance, in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of bombings on the facilities. “Cuba, a strong ally of Venezuela, has provided some security for Maduro since he came to power. It was not clear how many Cubans were guarding the Venezuelan president when they died and how many may were killed elsewhere.”
I am appalled at the US seizing the President of another country and then indicating that they did this because they want its oil. It is utterly disgraceful and every bit as bad as Russia's SMO (or illegal invasion) of Ukraine.
But as a military operation this is up there with Entebbe. An astonishing achievement.
Calling it "every bit as bad as Russia's SMO" is morally bankrupt.
At a guess, some elements in the Venezuelan government got tired of giving largess to Cuba, when they could be stealing it themselves, patriotically.
I have to disagree with the thread. Recent historical precedent very much suggests that Labour has thrown off the shackles and can nowadays move decisively against its leaders when the prospect of electoral defeat demands it.
The last Labour PM to win a general election before Starmer was deposed when in office. That happened when 2 years after a general election, Labour was underwater in the polls and the incumbent's credibility was irretrievably shot with the electorate. Pretty well the same scenario as now, butwith the biggest difference being that Labour is now facing historic levels of unpopularity, far worse than it was in mid 2007. So if anything the historical precedent there understates the likelihood of Starmer being forced out by MPs who know that no change will mean that they'll be out of work. The fact that Brown was there in waiting may have contributed to Blair walking rather than waiting until he was pushed out by MPs, but I think that matters little in this context.
The second historical precedent is the Corbyn one. Labour MPs have now shown that they are prepared to try and force out a Labour leader who won't walk. That is the precedent that matters, not the fact that Corbyn held on thanks to an unprecedented rift between the Labour MPs and the party membership. And again the difference only strengthens the precedent - this time the membership and MPs are united not disunited in looking on at horror at the electoral scenarios unfolding, which in the wake of May 2026 will be looking like an existential crisis for the whole party as well as its MPs, should nothing change.
The only reason that a challenge to Starmer has not already manifested itself is that the multiple challengers are all waiting for the 2026 local and devolved elections to be out of the way. That is both so that they themselves can't be blamed for a premature challenge delivering disasterous results, and also because the disaster will provide a perfect pretext to act.
I have to disagree with the thread. Recent historical precedent very much suggests that Labour has thrown off the shackles and can nowadays move decisively against its leaders when the prospect of electoral defeat demands it.
The last Labour PM to win a general election before Starmer was deposed when in office. That happened when 2 years after a general election, Labour was underwater in the polls and the incumbent's credibility was irretrievably shot with the electorate. Pretty well the same scenario as now, butwith the biggest difference being that Labour is now facing historic levels of unpopularity, far worse than it was in mid 2007. So if anything the historical precedent there understates the likelihood of Starmer being forced out by MPs who know that no change will mean that they'll be out of work. The fact that Brown was there in waiting may have contributed to Blair walking rather than waiting until he was pushed out by MPs, but I think that matters little in this context.
The second historical precedent is the Corbyn one. Labour MPs have now shown that they are prepared to try and force out a Labour leader who won't walk. That is the precedent that matters, not the fact that Corbyn held on thanks to an unprecedented rift between the Labour MPs and the party membership. And again the difference only strengthens the precedent - this time the membership and MPs are united not disunited in looking on at horror at the electoral scenarios unfolding, which in the wake of May 2026 will be looking like an existential crisis for the whole party as well as its MPs, should nothing change.
The only reason that a challenge to Starmer has not already manifested itself is that the multiple challengers are all waiting for the 2026 local and devolved elections to be out of the way. That is both so that they themselves can't be blamed for a premature challenge delivering disasterous results, and also because the disaster will provide a perfect pretext to act.
With Blair, he'd obviously and indelibly fucked up over Iraq. And there was an obvious replacement waiting next door.
Corbyn hung on way beyond what any other politician leader would have banged, thanks tho the rules.
I have to disagree with the thread. Recent historical precedent very much suggests that Labour has thrown off the shackles and can nowadays move decisively against its leaders when the prospect of electoral defeat demands it.
The last Labour PM to win a general election before Starmer was deposed when in office. That happened when 2 years after a general election, Labour was underwater in the polls and the incumbent's credibility was irretrievably shot with the electorate. Pretty well the same scenario as now, butwith the biggest difference being that Labour is now facing historic levels of unpopularity, far worse than it was in mid 2007. So if anything the historical precedent there understates the likelihood of Starmer being forced out by MPs who know that no change will mean that they'll be out of work. The fact that Brown was there in waiting may have contributed to Blair walking rather than waiting until he was pushed out by MPs, but I think that matters little in this context.
The second historical precedent is the Corbyn one. Labour MPs have now shown that they are prepared to try and force out a Labour leader who won't walk. That is the precedent that matters, not the fact that Corbyn held on thanks to an unprecedented rift between the Labour MPs and the party membership. And again the difference only strengthens the precedent - this time the membership and MPs are united not disunited in looking on at horror at the electoral scenarios unfolding, which in the wake of May 2026 will be looking like an existential crisis for the whole party as well as its MPs, should nothing change.
The only reason that a challenge to Starmer has not already manifested itself is that the multiple challengers are all waiting for the 2026 local and devolved elections to be out of the way. That is both so that they themselves can't be blamed for a premature challenge delivering disasterous results, and also because the disaster will provide a perfect pretext to act.
I suspect it won't be as big a disaster as some predict. If Labour beat the Tories on NEV and win a few seats from the SNP (and polls show a swing still from SNP to Labour since 2021) that would be enough for Starmer to avoid a leadership challenge.
He may well go by the next GE anyway but if he doesn't it would need Burnham back as an MP to be sure a challenge to Starmer would succeed
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Here's a question:
What had the Rules Based International Order ever done to stop or inhibit the huge trade in illegal drugs in South/Central America and all the associated crime and misery it was responsible for?
This post encapsulates a good deal of what the next few years will be discussing. I don't think all the conclusions are predictable. For quite a time Hobbes's Leviathan has been tamed for western liberals like me - we found a way of having our 'strong man' but limiting his power both in scope and duration (elections, rule of law, WTO, NATO, EU, ECHR, ICJ, UN, international law). It was great for us. For others, maybe less so. It will be an interesting ride.
I have to disagree with the thread. Recent historical precedent very much suggests that Labour has thrown off the shackles and can nowadays move decisively against its leaders when the prospect of electoral defeat demands it.
The last Labour PM to win a general election before Starmer was deposed when in office. That happened when 2 years after a general election, Labour was underwater in the polls and the incumbent's credibility was irretrievably shot with the electorate. Pretty well the same scenario as now, butwith the biggest difference being that Labour is now facing historic levels of unpopularity, far worse than it was in mid 2007. So if anything the historical precedent there understates the likelihood of Starmer being forced out by MPs who know that no change will mean that they'll be out of work. The fact that Brown was there in waiting may have contributed to Blair walking rather than waiting until he was pushed out by MPs, but I think that matters little in this context.
The second historical precedent is the Corbyn one. Labour MPs have now shown that they are prepared to try and force out a Labour leader who won't walk. That is the precedent that matters, not the fact that Corbyn held on thanks to an unprecedented rift between the Labour MPs and the party membership. And again the difference only strengthens the precedent - this time the membership and MPs are united not disunited in looking on at horror at the electoral scenarios unfolding, which in the wake of May 2026 will be looking like an existential crisis for the whole party as well as its MPs, should nothing change.
The only reason that a challenge to Starmer has not already manifested itself is that the multiple challengers are all waiting for the 2026 local and devolved elections to be out of the way. That is both so that they themselves can't be blamed for a premature challenge delivering disasterous results, and also because the disaster will provide a perfect pretext to act.
With Blair, he'd obviously and indelibly fucked up over Iraq. And there was an obvious replacement waiting next door.
Corbyn hung on way beyond what any other politician leader would have banged, thanks tho the rules.
Iraq is still Saddam free, Afghanistan is not now Taliban free.
Iraq therefore turned out better than Afghanistan, where we should have just got Bin Laden and then left
I actually believe that Starmer has passed the point of return, not least because he has angered the public so much they have stopped listening to him
Way out of his depth and I cannot see a way back, though he will have his loyalists much as Johnson and Truss had
This does not mean he will be replaced or even if he was labour would benefit but the public really are angry, disillusioned, and why Farage and Polanski are really NOTA but in many ways are even worse
I actually believe that Starmer has passed the point of return, not least because he has angered the public so much they have stopped listening to him
Way out of his depth and I cannot see a way back, though he will have his loyalists much as Johnson and Truss had
This does not mean he will be replaced or even if he was labour would benefit but the public really are angry, disillusioned, and why Farage and Polanski are really NOTA but in many ways are even worse
I’m sure Scots will attach no blame to Anas who has supinely gone along with every u-turn, broken the same promises as Starmer and is nowhere to be found when various bad uns are exposed in his own sub branch. Still, it shows how bad things are for Starmer when even a jellyfish has turned against him.
President Donald J. Trump: “Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil, they’re not getting any of that now. Cuba is literally ready to fall, and you have a lot of great Cuban-Americans who are going to be very happy about this.”
Why post a tweet by someone who demonstrably doesn't know what's going on?
President Donald J. Trump: “Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil, they’re not getting any of that now. Cuba is literally ready to fall, and you have a lot of great Cuban-Americans who are going to be very happy about this.”
I thought Cuba exported rum and had a decent tourist trade.
Are you surprised that Trump has said something that's not true? Wait until you here about several hundred other tweets he's sent!
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
What a f*cking stupid post that is.
The rules based international order has served us pretty well all our lives... Until it started to be ignored by Putin, Netanyahu, and now Trump in the past few years.
The idea that Trump and his law of the jungle is somehow good for America is mad. The UK benefited from the post War World order, as did Europe generally, in large part because it was good for America too. America had an interest in mostly maintaining the rules because it benefited from them.
If we had been following the rules of the rules-based order, we wouldn’t have intervened in Kosovo.
Kosovo is an interesting case study. The case for intervening in Kosovo was strong, based on crimes against humanity. The problem was with then recognising Kosovo as an independent country. I have huge sympathy for the Kosovans and think the world would be a better place with a widely-recognised independent Kosovo, but the partial recognition of Kosovo was a problematic shift in the international rules-based order and one that Putin took advantage of to support fictions like Abkhazia.
The lesson of Kosovo is that we should stick more closely to the rules-based order, not that we should break it.
Kosovo is an interesting case study. The case for intervening in Kosovo was strong, based on crimes against humanity. The problem was with then recognising Kosovo as an independent country. I have huge sympathy for the Kosovans and think the world would be a better place with a widely-recognised independent Kosovo, but the partial recognition of Kosovo was a problematic shift in the international rules-based order and one that Putin took advantage of to support fictions like Abkhazia.
The lesson of Kosovo is that we should stick more closely to the rules-based order, not that we should break it.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
What a f*cking stupid post that is.
The rules based international order has served us pretty well all our lives... Until it started to be ignored by Putin, Netanyahu, and now Trump in the past few years.
The idea that Trump and his law of the jungle is somehow good for America is mad. The UK benefited from the post War World order, as did Europe generally, in large part because it was good for America too. America had an interest in mostly maintaining the rules because it benefited from them.
If we had been following the rules of the rules-based order, we wouldn’t have intervened in Kosovo.
Kosovo is an interesting case study. The case for intervening in Kosovo was strong, based on crimes against humanity. The problem was with then recognising Kosovo as an independent country. I have huge sympathy for the Kosovans and think the world would be a better place with a widely-recognised independent Kosovo, but the partial recognition of Kosovo was a problematic shift in the international rules-based order and one that Putin took advantage of to support fictions like Abkhazia.
The lesson of Kosovo is that we should stick more closely to the rules-based order, not that we should break it.
That would have meant leaving Milosevic in power and leaving the Kosovans to their fate.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Here's a question:
What had the Rules Based International Order ever done to stop or inhibit the huge trade in illegal drugs in South/Central America and all the associated crime and misery it was responsible for?
Well, the War on Drugs hasn't done much to stop or inhibit the huge trade in illegal drugs in South/Central America either.
My first car, acquired 1982 from my dad. I did nearly 100,000 miles in it, much of it around central London where I lived till 1984. It was 'snapdragon yellow'. I hope she is happy in that heaven where all good Allegros go. RIP 1990.
By the end of the week Maduro will likely have had the votes of China and Russia and Columbia on the UN Security Council and probably a majority of the UN General Assembly in his favour and condemning the actions of Trump and the US in capturing him. His VP is now acting President of Venezuela and remains loyal to him, he can also portray himself as a martyr for the left against Trump in a US jail.
Has Trump really thought through all the above? Capturing Maduro was not enough, he has to follow through on his commitment to create a new government of Venezuela and ignore condemnation from much of the international community
Trump has clearly not through all of this. I'm not certain he's thought through anything lately. The question is whether Rubio has thought this through.
I presume she's a better singer than geo-strategist. Greenland (pop 57,000) declaring independence would be tantamount to inviting the US to takeover completely.
Greenland asking to join Canada would be funny, though.
Greenland is only a few miles from Canada. It's quite a distance from the USA.
By the end of the week Maduro will likely have had the votes of China and Russia and Columbia on the UN Security Council and probably a majority of the UN General Assembly in his favour and condemning the actions of Trump and the US in capturing him. His VP is now acting President of Venezuela and remains loyal to him, he can also portray himself as a martyr for the left against Trump in a US jail.
Has Trump really thought through all the above? Capturing Maduro was not enough, he has to follow through on his commitment to create a new government of Venezuela and ignore condemnation from much of the international community
Trump has clearly not through all of this. I'm not certain he's thought through anything lately. The question is whether Rubio has thought this through.
What purpose would "thinking" serve, for any of that crew?
By the end of the week Maduro will likely have had the votes of China and Russia and Columbia on the UN Security Council and probably a majority of the UN General Assembly in his favour and condemning the actions of Trump and the US in capturing him. His VP is now acting President of Venezuela and remains loyal to him, he can also portray himself as a martyr for the left against Trump in a US jail.
Has Trump really thought through all the above? Capturing Maduro was not enough, he has to follow through on his commitment to create a new government of Venezuela and ignore condemnation from much of the international community
Trump has clearly not through all of this. I'm not certain he's thought through anything lately. The question is whether Rubio has thought this through.
I posted a link upthread. The BEST explanation of the whole Venezuela debacle is they did it for clicks. They put as much thought into what happens next as a guy skateboarding down a staircase.
That is what the famously patriotic christian Stephen Yaxley Lennon has been calling for: the abduction of our Prime Minister by a foreign state. Musk hasn't taken the post down on twitter.
Does that reach the threshold for a treason charge? Not bothered about the treason but having the obnoxious shite locked up seems a "good thing" and might help people recover the money he owes them.
"...I am saddened by the number of British people whose loyalty is to Trump and would welcome an invasion of Greenland because it would own the libs. Patriotism, in the sense of patriotism to Britain, is disappearing amongst the commentariat..."
Russian Ambassador to the UN says that US action in Venezuela is "a harbinger of a return to an era of chaos, lawlessness and US domination by force... We hope that this banditry will be met immediately with an objective and comprehensive assessment under international law."
China asks for Maduro's immediate release saying "the US has placed its own power above multilateralism and military action above diplomacy". Addresses Trump: "President, the lessons of history are a stark warning. The indiscriminate use of force will lead to greater crises."
My first car, acquired 1982 from my dad. I did nearly 100,000 miles in it, much of it around central London where I lived till 1984. It was 'snapdragon yellow'. I hope she is happy in that heaven where all good Allegros go. RIP 1990.
According to the How Many left site plenty in car heaven as only 294 are still licensed. A few more are SORNed.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
What a f*cking stupid post that is.
The rules based international order has served us pretty well all our lives... Until it started to be ignored by Putin, Netanyahu, and now Trump in the past few years.
The idea that Trump and his law of the jungle is somehow good for America is mad. The UK benefited from the post War World order, as did Europe generally, in large part because it was good for America too. America had an interest in mostly maintaining the rules because it benefited from them.
If we had been following the rules of the rules-based order, we wouldn’t have intervened in Kosovo.
Kosovo is an interesting case study. The case for intervening in Kosovo was strong, based on crimes against humanity. The problem was with then recognising Kosovo as an independent country. I have huge sympathy for the Kosovans and think the world would be a better place with a widely-recognised independent Kosovo, but the partial recognition of Kosovo was a problematic shift in the international rules-based order and one that Putin took advantage of to support fictions like Abkhazia.
The lesson of Kosovo is that we should stick more closely to the rules-based order, not that we should break it.
That would have meant leaving Milosevic in power and leaving the Kosovans to their fate.
No. We could have taken military action against Serbia and set up some kind of mandate in Kosovo without moving to recognise Kosovo as an independent state.
By the end of the week Maduro will likely have had the votes of China and Russia and Columbia on the UN Security Council and probably a majority of the UN General Assembly in his favour and condemning the actions of Trump and the US in capturing him. His VP is now acting President of Venezuela and remains loyal to him, he can also portray himself as a martyr for the left against Trump in a US jail.
Has Trump really thought through all the above? Capturing Maduro was not enough, he has to follow through on his commitment to create a new government of Venezuela and ignore condemnation from much of the international community
Trump has clearly not through all of this. I'm not certain he's thought through anything lately. The question is whether Rubio has thought this through.
I posted a link upthread. The BEST explanation of the whole Venezuela debacle is they did it for clicks. They put as much thought into what happens next as a guy skateboarding down a staircase.
Shame on you.
There are plenty of videos of people skateboarding down staircases on Youtube. Many of them exhibit an incredible degree of skill and planning.
By the end of the week Maduro will likely have had the votes of China and Russia and Columbia on the UN Security Council and probably a majority of the UN General Assembly in his favour and condemning the actions of Trump and the US in capturing him. His VP is now acting President of Venezuela and remains loyal to him, he can also portray himself as a martyr for the left against Trump in a US jail.
Has Trump really thought through all the above? Capturing Maduro was not enough, he has to follow through on his commitment to create a new government of Venezuela and ignore condemnation from much of the international community
Trump has clearly not through all of this. I'm not certain he's thought through anything lately. The question is whether Rubio has thought this through.
I posted a link upthread. The BEST explanation of the whole Venezuela debacle is they did it for clicks. They put as much thought into what happens next as a guy skateboarding down a staircase.
I think there is a lot of merit in the analysis you posed. However, I suspect Rubio has put more thought into Venezuela, while Trump was just mouthing off with limited understanding of the situation.
I presume she's a better singer than geo-strategist. Greenland (pop 57,000) declaring independence would be tantamount to inviting the US to takeover completely.
Greenland asking to join Canada would be funny, though.
Greenland is only a few miles from Canada. It's quite a distance from the USA.
Comments
Canada is much too big to invade and meaningfully hold all of it against its will, let alone the fact a majority of Americans don't support that, and even if initially easy it'd require a sizeable occupation force. It's also too populated to be organised as anything other than a US State, and probably multiple states given its size, which would be heavily Democrat (except possibly Alberta) and tend to kick the Republicans out of controlling both the Senate and House of Representatives.
So, no, it's not happening.
I could, however, see Canada conceding a US base or two in the far North, or something similar, maybe to complement Greenland, which presumably is what Trump is really after - and he'd no doubt declare that as a success.
The US is no longer one of the powers, whileTrump or his coterie remain in power, and Europe doesn't as yet have sufficient military strength.
For now, China is still paying lip service to a rules based order, for whatever that's worth..
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202601/1352265.shtml
China always opposes the use or threat of force, as well as any imposition of one country's will on another, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Sunday when speaking of the situation in Venezuela, according to Xinhua News Agency.
Wang, also a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, made the remarks when holding the Seventh Round of China-Pakistan Foreign Ministers' Strategic Dialogue with Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar in Beijing.
Wang said the current international situation is more volatile and intertwined, with unilateral bullying becoming increasingly severe.
The sudden change of situation in Venezuela has drawn high attention from the international community, Wang said.
"We never believe that any country can play the role of world policeman, nor do we agree that any country can claim itself to be an international judge," Wang said, adding that the sovereignty and security of all countries should be fully protected by international law.
Following the US' large-scale strike against Venezuela and its seizing of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores and their transfer out of the country, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on Sunday that the US' move is in clear violation of international law, basic norms of international relations, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter..
It's simply not an even semi-credible excuse for the US seizing it.
Didn't the rules based order send defeated slavic warlords to the Hague?
https://x.com/bjork/status/2008166384107131297
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/vp-vances-ohio-home-damaged-man-in-custody-secret-service-says
Farage could almost certainly only get the Tories and the DUP and TUV to back him on a vote of confidence and only a Jenrick led Tories would be certain to back him on such a vote
It's concerning to hear politicians so bewildered by what is going on. We're really through the looking glass now.
What had the Rules Based International Order ever done to stop or inhibit the huge trade in illegal drugs in South/Central America and all the associated crime and misery it was responsible for?
Essentially, the administration 's view was expressed 2,500 years ago:
"We shall not trouble you with specious pretences—either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us—and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Spartans [ … ] or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do as they will and the weak suffer what they must."
And, we know that turned out in the end for Athens.
The USA could easily take Greenland by brute force, but at the expense of losing a load of allies. It's not in their strategic interest, but the current administration does think in terms of strategic interest. It only thinks in terms of brute force.
One should not make a fetish of international law (as the more precious members of the legal profession tend to), but there is advantage to showing restraint, and practising co-operation with other nations.
https://x.com/spencerhakimian/status/2007921340700053530
But as a military operation this is up there with Entebbe. An astonishing achievement.
The people in charge of the US are anti-democrats, more comfortable doing business with dictators.
Has Trump really thought through all the above? Capturing Maduro was not enough, he has to follow through on his commitment to create a new government of Venezuela and ignore condemnation from much of the international community
I wouldn't read too much into it.
@FindoutnowUK
🟦 Reform UK: 31% (+1)
🔵 Conservatives: 17% (-1)
🟢 Greens: 17% (-)
🔴 Labour: 15% (+1)
🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (+1)
Changes from 24th December
[Find Out Now, 31st December, N=2,930]"
https://x.com/FindoutnowUK/status/2008136980790743405
Sigh.
One last take on Venezuela from a different angle; Fraser Nelson (from Substack) on why getting rich off its oil won’t work likeTrump seems to think it does. (Aka the one thing worse than unashamed imperialism is incompetent unashamed imperialism)
https://bsky.app/profile/gabyhinsliff.bsky.social/post/3mbondxbcss2z
Thinking again about how the administration sees its self as content creators first as it becomes clearer that we don't have a plan in Venezuela
https://bsky.app/profile/cooperlund.online/post/3mbonxrcjp22i
Get Jesse ‘The Body’ back.
Logic applies reason to experiences, ie history. Logic itself is its history from Aristotle to Frege and beyond.
Intuition and speculation essentially does the same.
Prediction applies the principle of induction from experiences, ie history or 'the past', to imagine and order possible futures.
I agree we have no reason to think the future is a mirror of the past. But that is pretty obvious when you look at history (it being the only thing you can look at).
Today’s useless but interesting factoid…
It looks like an inside job.
The last Labour PM to win a general election before Starmer was deposed when in office. That happened when 2 years after a general election, Labour was underwater in the polls and the incumbent's credibility was irretrievably shot with the electorate. Pretty well the same scenario as now, butwith the biggest difference being that Labour is now facing historic levels of unpopularity, far worse than it was in mid 2007. So if anything the historical precedent there understates the likelihood of Starmer being forced out by MPs who know that no change will mean that they'll be out of work. The fact that Brown was there in waiting may have contributed to Blair walking rather than waiting until he was pushed out by MPs, but I think that matters little in this context.
The second historical precedent is the Corbyn one. Labour MPs have now shown that they are prepared to try and force out a Labour leader who won't walk. That is the precedent that matters, not the fact that Corbyn held on thanks to an unprecedented rift between the Labour MPs and the party membership. And again the difference only strengthens the precedent - this time the membership and MPs are united not disunited in looking on at horror at the electoral scenarios unfolding, which in the wake of May 2026 will be looking like an existential crisis for the whole party as well as its MPs, should nothing change.
The only reason that a challenge to Starmer has not already manifested itself is that the multiple challengers are all waiting for the 2026 local and devolved elections to be out of the way. That is both so that they themselves can't be blamed for a premature challenge delivering disasterous results, and also because the disaster will provide a perfect pretext to act.
https://xcancel.com/LeftieStats/status/2008155934271631539#m
Corbyn hung on way beyond what any other politician leader would have banged, thanks tho the rules.
He may well go by the next GE anyway but if he doesn't it would need Burnham back as an MP to be sure a challenge to Starmer would succeed
Iraq therefore turned out better than Afghanistan, where we should have just got Bin Laden and then left
It clearly is a scandal, it has cost Walz his Governorship. Investigative journalists target politicians of all persuasions.
MN needs Jesse ‘the Body’ Ventura back.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/anas-sarwar-admits-scots-angry-36498374
I actually believe that Starmer has passed the point of return, not least because he has angered the public so much they have stopped listening to him
Way out of his depth and I cannot see a way back, though he will have his loyalists much as Johnson and Truss had
This does not mean he will be replaced or even if he was labour would benefit but the public really are angry, disillusioned, and why Farage and Polanski are really NOTA but in many ways are even worse
The lesson of Kosovo is that we should stick more closely to the rules-based order, not that we should break it.
Russian Representative to the UN - "Here is your rules based order in all its glory".
#Venezeula
At this rate, they win a landslide at the next election!
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5415470#Comment_5415470 - me, yesterday.
https://bsky.app/profile/bestforbritain.org/post/3mbosdxiaes2g
https://x.com/BestForBritain/status/2008208076399329337?s=20
There are plenty of videos of people skateboarding down staircases on Youtube. Many of them exhibit an incredible degree of skill and planning.
The same with interior decor from the early seventies.
None lf this bland magnolia or feature wall shite.
How do they divide up the stockpile of booze?