Llandudno cosplay matelot fined £500. Rear-Admiral too. He might as well have gone for Admiral of the Fleet, so cheap.
Even wore a DSO (apparently a real one, only someone else won it) , but that isn't criminal.
I found it quite disheartening, if that is what floated his boat. King Charles never gets fined for wearing a f***ton of military combat medals he didn't earn. Likewise Edward.
Simply untrue. None of his medals are combat related.
Llandudno cosplay matelot fined £500. Rear-Admiral too. He might as well have gone for Admiral of the Fleet, so cheap.
Even wore a DSO (apparently a real one, only someone else won it) , but that isn't criminal.
I found it quite disheartening, if that is what floated his boat. King Charles never gets fined for wearing a f***ton of military combat medals he didn't earn. Likewise Edward.
I'm not sure he should have been charged. A victimless crime.
Tell that to the servicepeople who actually earned their medals, and their families.
I thought remembance services were for remembering friends and colleagues who laid down their lives, not showing off medals. Not everyone got medals. Not all families had a medal holder to mourn, just an ordinary soldier.
Everyone got a medal for serving, actually: the campaign medals etc. Or at least they did if they wanted to apply for them - or their relatives did, I think.
My dad had one for WW2 even though he was a teenager for all of his time (trained as artificer). He did get to see some operational service in a trench somewhere around Rame Head (invasion alert)! He also earned them for other campaigns etc. My granddad had several for his 1915-1919 stint. But my other granddad - no papers, no medals, no record of service survives other than one photo of him training on a Hotchkiss LMG, with a Lewis Gunner badge on his sleeve. That's it. He can't have been the only man to set his war aside.
Edit: the gallantry awards are separate.
I have my grandads ww2 medals, all service related. Quite the haul, but none for acts of valour.
We all knew, even before the events of last week, the Monroe Doctrine was enjoying a new lease of life in the Trump Administration but let's be fair, it never really went away.
The notion of "buying" territories is hardly new for America - the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska? Making Denmark a commercial offer for Greenland would seem the sensible move - I always thought the only way Ireland would ever be reunited was if one side bought out the another.
Diplomancy via force majeure and the power of money - it's really nothing new. The Americans used financial leverage against France and ourselves over Suez and the Romans would bribe tribes to collaborate.
We might like to think international diplomacy is governed by rules and regulations more akin to a chess game but sometimes it isn't and forcing regime change through military or commercial power has occurred down the ages.
Yes but it's a matter of degree and about the direction of travel. People on the whole strive for improvement in their various fields of endeavour. That's where progress comes from. Why should international affairs and geopolitics regress to a more primitive time? There's nothing 'shrug' about that.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
From the perspective of serious people in the Trump administration, stopping the self-indulgent nonsense is precisely what they think they are doing. You may not agree with them, but it's better to engage with them seriously instead of treating them as idiots.
For example, Marco Rubio talks about defunding NGOs and switching to a model of working directly with governments around the world. Is this self-indulgent nonsense?
The United States has spent billions of dollars over the years in helping with health strategies all across the world. What we learned over time and especially after coming here, is that oftentimes - and I'm oversimplifying it but this is an accurate description - what would happen is we would go to a country and say we're going to help you with your health care needs. Then we would drive over to western - northern Virginia somewhere, find an NGO, one of these organizations, give them all the money, tell them go to this country and do their health care program for them. That NGO would then take about - some percentage of that money for their overhead and administrative costs, and by the time it got down to it, the host country had very little influence, it was sort of imposed on them, and only a percentage of the overall money ever actually reached the patients and the people on the ground that we were trying to help because of these costs.
This makes no sense. So why are we hiring American and international NGOs to go into other countries and run health care systems that are parallel and sometimes in conflict with the health care systems of the host country? If we're trying to help countries, help the country, don't help the NGO to go in and find a new line of business. And so that's what - the model that we're breaking. We're not doing this anymore. We are not going to spend billions of dollars funding the NGO industrial complex while close and important partners like Kenya are - either have no role to play or have very little influence over how health care money is being spent. Bottom line is if you want to help a country, work with that country, not work with a third party that imposes things on that country.
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
Llandudno cosplay matelot fined £500. Rear-Admiral too. He might as well have gone for Admiral of the Fleet, so cheap.
Even wore a DSO (apparently a real one, only someone else won it) , but that isn't criminal.
I found it quite disheartening, if that is what floated his boat. King Charles never gets fined for wearing a f***ton of military combat medals he didn't earn. Likewise Edward.
Aren't the Kings medals the insignia of weird European chivalric orders?
He wears the Royal Navy LS&GC medal which you only get after 15 years of continuous operational service. Stolen valour.
A medal you have? If so, and if the terms are precise then you might write to the King. If your case is good then you might see him not wearing that ribbon in the future.
These sorts of things are overlooked, but the authorities are surprising receptive to such things being pointed out to them. My uncle (who I never met) died when flying an Avro Anson. Sadly no Dura mechanics seem to have been on his ground crew, or he just ploughed into the Irish mountain for his own reasons - possibly testing radar stuff. Anyway, after a few gentle letters my father got the local church monument adjusted to include him.
My grandad single handedly brought down 10 German aircraft in the war.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
From the perspective of serious people in the Trump administration, stopping the self-indulgent nonsense is precisely what they think they are doing. You may not agree with them, but it's better to engage with them seriously instead of treating them as idiots.
For example, Marco Rubio talks about defunding NGOs and switching to a model of working directly with governments around the world. Is this self-indulgent nonsense?
The United States has spent billions of dollars over the years in helping with health strategies all across the world. What we learned over time and especially after coming here, is that oftentimes - and I'm oversimplifying it but this is an accurate description - what would happen is we would go to a country and say we're going to help you with your health care needs. Then we would drive over to western - northern Virginia somewhere, find an NGO, one of these organizations, give them all the money, tell them go to this country and do their health care program for them. That NGO would then take about - some percentage of that money for their overhead and administrative costs, and by the time it got down to it, the host country had very little influence, it was sort of imposed on them, and only a percentage of the overall money ever actually reached the patients and the people on the ground that we were trying to help because of these costs.
This makes no sense. So why are we hiring American and international NGOs to go into other countries and run health care systems that are parallel and sometimes in conflict with the health care systems of the host country? If we're trying to help countries, help the country, don't help the NGO to go in and find a new line of business. And so that's what - the model that we're breaking. We're not doing this anymore. We are not going to spend billions of dollars funding the NGO industrial complex while close and important partners like Kenya are - either have no role to play or have very little influence over how health care money is being spent. Bottom line is if you want to help a country, work with that country, not work with a third party that imposes things on that country.
Isn’t that pretty similar to how we do it.
NGO’s and large ‘charities’ taking the cash to ‘manage’ the project.
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I remember having this argument a decade ago with my uncle. He was of the view it was important that the UK followed international law because otherwise China would use it as an excuse to break it. I thought China would just break it anyway…
Is there a point when it will become obvious to Americans that their president is less than stable? Columbia, Mexico, Cuba, Greenland, Iran (add in your favourites here) are all mentioned.
"Trump issues threats against multiple countries following Venezuela strike"
Llandudno cosplay matelot fined £500. Rear-Admiral too. He might as well have gone for Admiral of the Fleet, so cheap.
Even wore a DSO (apparently a real one, only someone else won it) , but that isn't criminal.
I found it quite disheartening, if that is what floated his boat. King Charles never gets fined for wearing a f***ton of military combat medals he didn't earn. Likewise Edward.
I'm not sure he should have been charged. A victimless crime.
Tell that to the servicepeople who actually earned their medals, and their families.
I thought remembance services were for remembering friends and colleagues who laid down their lives, not showing off medals. Not everyone got medals. Not all families had a medal holder to mourn, just an ordinary soldier.
Everyone got a medal for serving, actually: the campaign medals etc. Or at least they did if they wanted to apply for them - or their relatives did, I think.
My dad had one for WW2 even though he was a teenager for all of his time (trained as artificer). He did get to see some operational service in a trench somewhere around Rame Head (invasion alert)! He also earned them for other campaigns etc. My granddad had several for his 1915-1919 stint. But my other granddad - no papers, no medals, no record of service survives other than one photo of him training on a Hotchkiss LMG, with a Lewis Gunner badge on his sleeve. That's it. He can't have been the only man to set his war aside.
Edit: the gallantry awards are separate.
Rame Head defends the entrance to the Tamar and the naval dock yards at Devonport, and the area was bombed to shit in the war. My grandmother drove an ambulance during the blitz in Plymouth and saw some pretty horrible stuff I think. There's the remnants of an anti aircraft battery in front of the ruined chapel at Rame. We will be walking to Rame from Whitsand Bay in August I am sure - I will look out for your dad's trench.
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
Might is Right - until someone punches you in the face.
Just because things were not as utopian as many might prefer does not mean all pretence at rules adherence should be abandoned. The loss of polite fictions or things honoured more in the breach is not without consequence, and devolvement into past lack of care for such things is not to be welcomed as some ackwowledgement of reality, even if people who act like we lived in a perfect rules based order are wrong.
Public hangings if they'd gone ahead with the Abercrombie plan for Edinburgh. My fear is the current virulent strain of anti-NIMBYism will result in similar vandalism.
Looks like John McTernan has either been hacked or has some remarkably good luck with Crypto and is willing to share it with us all. My money, not crypto, is on the former.
A major faux pas from a senior Polish journalist who noticed a black man in the photo from the Mar-a-lago situation room and assumed that he was a member of the resort staff:
Sir Keir Starmer routinely describes his friendly relations with Donald Trump as a great asset to the UK. Trump himself though is a living nightmare for the British prime minister and his ambitions to revive his and his party’s fortunes.
One reason is that every time Trump executes one of his “I-can’t-believe-he-just-did-that” policies, nothing that Starmer says or does is heard by anyone.
Starmer was for example hoping to usher in the new year by advertising all the ways he is bringing down the cost of living. But did you notice him in Reading this morning when he boasted about his railway fairs freeze and discounts?
I’d be surprised.
Because anything Starmer wants to say about pretty much anything is being drowned out by Trump’s seizure of the Venezuelan president, in just the latest manifestation of what you might call a new American exceptionalism - which is a euphemism for Trump sticking two fingers up at allies like the UK who think the United Nations and international law are worth cherishing and preserving.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
From the perspective of serious people in the Trump administration, stopping the self-indulgent nonsense is precisely what they think they are doing. You may not agree with them, but it's better to engage with them seriously instead of treating them as idiots.
For example, Marco Rubio talks about defunding NGOs and switching to a model of working directly with governments around the world. Is this self-indulgent nonsense?
The United States has spent billions of dollars over the years in helping with health strategies all across the world. What we learned over time and especially after coming here, is that oftentimes - and I'm oversimplifying it but this is an accurate description - what would happen is we would go to a country and say we're going to help you with your health care needs. Then we would drive over to western - northern Virginia somewhere, find an NGO, one of these organizations, give them all the money, tell them go to this country and do their health care program for them. That NGO would then take about - some percentage of that money for their overhead and administrative costs, and by the time it got down to it, the host country had very little influence, it was sort of imposed on them, and only a percentage of the overall money ever actually reached the patients and the people on the ground that we were trying to help because of these costs.
This makes no sense. So why are we hiring American and international NGOs to go into other countries and run health care systems that are parallel and sometimes in conflict with the health care systems of the host country? If we're trying to help countries, help the country, don't help the NGO to go in and find a new line of business. And so that's what - the model that we're breaking. We're not doing this anymore. We are not going to spend billions of dollars funding the NGO industrial complex while close and important partners like Kenya are - either have no role to play or have very little influence over how health care money is being spent. Bottom line is if you want to help a country, work with that country, not work with a third party that imposes things on that country.
Thanks (genuinely). I take that as a vote for America doubling down on current path if China invades Taiwan.
Looks like John McTernan has either been hacked or has some remarkably good luck with Crypto and is willing to share it with us all. My money, not crypto, is on the former.
Llandudno cosplay matelot fined £500. Rear-Admiral too. He might as well have gone for Admiral of the Fleet, so cheap.
Even wore a DSO (apparently a real one, only someone else won it) , but that isn't criminal.
I found it quite disheartening, if that is what floated his boat. King Charles never gets fined for wearing a f***ton of military combat medals he didn't earn. Likewise Edward.
I'm not sure he should have been charged. A victimless crime.
It was hugely disrespectful and widely condemned here in Llandudno
Being disrespectful should not be a crime.
Pretending to hold a position of authority you do not have should be though. It can cause deception and thus loss. And thus is a crime. That no loss was caused is neither here nor there - you might as well refuse to prosecute motor offences where no one gets hurt. Or any attempted crime.
Although I agree no-one rattles pearls quite like Big G. He should get medals just for that. The best pearl rattler in North Wales.
He's been doing it for years.
At one time he turned up at a memorial event, took over, and gave a speech.
I thought you were referring to Big_G there for a moment (!)
Of course they should be worried. We all should. the world is being treated as a marionette with a lunatic pulling the strings.
Those who wanted us to Brexit so we could regain our sovereignty will hopefully be giving themselves a serious talking to and the leaders of the folly should be hung drawn and quartered
Is there anything you won't connect to Brexit? Jack the Ripper? Food in buckets? Band Aid 2?
Band Aid 2 was the Stock Aitken and Waterman one, wasn’t it? Definitely the worse. (And undoubtedly caused by Brexit.)
Of course they should be worried. We all should. the world is being treated as a marionette with a lunatic pulling the strings.
Those who wanted us to Brexit so we could regain our sovereignty will hopefully be giving themselves a serious talking to and the leaders of the folly should be hung drawn and quartered
If we were still in the EU, what would we be doing differently? What would the EU be doing differently? And what would Trump be doing differently?
More astonishing public comments from the Danish PM on Greenland.
“I believe one should take the American president seriously when he says that he wants Greenland. But I will also make it clear that if the US chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.”
All the more remarkable given that less than three years ago Mette Frederiksen was meeting another US president & being considered for the NATO sec-gen job.
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
More astonishing public comments from the Danish PM on Greenland.
“I believe one should take the American president seriously when he says that he wants Greenland. But I will also make it clear that if the US chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.”
All the more remarkable given that less than three years ago Mette Frederiksen was meeting another US president & being considered for the NATO sec-gen job.
NATO is already over, but nobody in any European government seems quite ready to decide what happens next so the kayfabe holds for now.
Of course they should be worried. We all should. the world is being treated as a marionette with a lunatic pulling the strings.
Those who wanted us to Brexit so we could regain our sovereignty will hopefully be giving themselves a serious talking to and the leaders of the folly should be hung drawn and quartered
If we were still in the EU, what would we be doing differently? What would the EU be doing differently? And what would Trump be doing differently?
An EU common defence proposition would be on the table.
Anne Applebaum @anneapplebaum A year ago, I went to Copenhagen to write about the political crisis Trump had created over Greenland. Danes told me that because the US can already do whatever it wants on the island, they had come to a conclusion: Trump just wants the U.S. to look bigger on a map
We all knew, even before the events of last week, the Monroe Doctrine was enjoying a new lease of life in the Trump Administration but let's be fair, it never really went away.
The notion of "buying" territories is hardly new for America - the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska? Making Denmark a commercial offer for Greenland would seem the sensible move - I always thought the only way Ireland would ever be reunited was if one side bought out the another.
Diplomancy via force majeure and the power of money - it's really nothing new. The Americans used financial leverage against France and ourselves over Suez and the Romans would bribe tribes to collaborate.
We might like to think international diplomacy is governed by rules and regulations more akin to a chess game but sometimes it isn't and forcing regime change through military or commercial power has occurred down the ages.
Yes but it's a matter of degree and about the direction of travel. People on the whole strive for improvement in their various fields of endeavour. That's where progress comes from. Why should international affairs and geopolitics regress to a more primitive time? There's nothing 'shrug' about that.
It's probably more nuanced than the way I've stated it.
The use or threat of force as a part of diplomacy has been a part of human history - the use of money or capital is a more recent phenomenon but is an integral part of how nations function. When we had an Empire, we used both military and economic force to build and maintain it - it didn't always work and it doesn't always work.
As an example, William of Normandy invaded England in 1066 primarily because we had a prosperous agricultural economy with strong trade to Flanders and a healthy supply of silver which was currency.
I would argue we have, whether out of fear or choice, built in some limitations. Nuclear and biological warfare represents such an existential threat to the species we have used them sparingly - we know (and that means the people who matter know) the consequences of nuclear escalation or the use of chemical weapons.
Technology (rightly or wrongly) has allowed a degree of precision of destruction hitherto unseen. We don't have to level a city if we want to decapitate or excise a regime not to our liking but as we know removing a tyrant rarely leads to a happy or peaceful future for the population as would-be successors jostle for power. Libya is one example - Iraq was another, Afghanistan arguably a third.
I really don't know what the incursion into Venezuela has achieved at this time - Trump clearly has a view. One thing it has done is to demonstrate American power and finesse to hostile countries. The medium and longer term implications are, for this observer, harder to ascertain. Does America really want to "run" Venezuela? I suspect not but it wants to have a big involvement in the economic future of the country.
A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would have a damaging impact on the chips industry but it would also be costly to China, They would lose a lot of men even if they did ultimately capture the island and it would be costly in terms of sanctions and expense of maintaining order in the nation subsequently and keeping down any resistance
Interesting explainer on American efforts over 150 years to get their hands on Greenland. Six serious attempts, partially successful in 1946 when they simply refused to move when asked to do so at the end of the war. The difference then was they came to an agreement with Denmark - that mythical rules based order.
My takeaways: 1. The US does want Greenland. This isn't a Trump special. 2. Denmark can't stop the US doing so. 3. Greenlanders understandably are angry about how Denmark treated its colony in the past and want independence but don't think it viable without subsidies. 4. They probably would be happy to sign up with the US if the deal was right, at which point it's over for Denmark, but they mistrust Trump (for good reason)
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
It's clear that we are regressing to an unashamed 'might is right' rule in geopolitics but it's really not something to celebrate.
The good news it is only temporary, soon the corporations and/or AI will take over.
And then after that - finally! - the promised land. The whole world attains slightly left of centre social democracy except with no private schools and all utilities in public ownership.
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
It never worked.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
Llandudno cosplay matelot fined £500. Rear-Admiral too. He might as well have gone for Admiral of the Fleet, so cheap.
Even wore a DSO (apparently a real one, only someone else won it) , but that isn't criminal.
I found it quite disheartening, if that is what floated his boat. King Charles never gets fined for wearing a f***ton of military combat medals he didn't earn. Likewise Edward.
We all knew, even before the events of last week, the Monroe Doctrine was enjoying a new lease of life in the Trump Administration but let's be fair, it never really went away.
The notion of "buying" territories is hardly new for America - the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska? Making Denmark a commercial offer for Greenland would seem the sensible move - I always thought the only way Ireland would ever be reunited was if one side bought out the another.
Diplomancy via force majeure and the power of money - it's really nothing new. The Americans used financial leverage against France and ourselves over Suez and the Romans would bribe tribes to collaborate.
We might like to think international diplomacy is governed by rules and regulations more akin to a chess game but sometimes it isn't and forcing regime change through military or commercial power has occurred down the ages.
Yes but it's a matter of degree and about the direction of travel. People on the whole strive for improvement in their various fields of endeavour. That's where progress comes from. Why should international affairs and geopolitics regress to a more primitive time? There's nothing 'shrug' about that.
It's probably more nuanced than the way I've stated it.
The use or threat of force as a part of diplomacy has been a part of human history - the use of money or capital is a more recent phenomenon but is an integral part of how nations function. When we had an Empire, we used both military and economic force to build and maintain it - it didn't always work and it doesn't always work.
As an example, William of Normandy invaded England in 1066 primarily because we had a prosperous agricultural economy with strong trade to Flanders and a healthy supply of silver which was currency.
I would argue we have, whether out of fear or choice, built in some limitations. Nuclear and biological warfare represents such an existential threat to the species we have used them sparingly - we know (and that means the people who matter know) the consequences of nuclear escalation or the use of chemical weapons.
Technology (rightly or wrongly) has allowed a degree of precision of destruction hitherto unseen. We don't have to level a city if we want to decapitate or excise a regime not to our liking but as we know removing a tyrant rarely leads to a happy or peaceful future for the population as would-be successors jostle for power. Libya is one example - Iraq was another, Afghanistan arguably a third.
I really don't know what the incursion into Venezuela has achieved at this time - Trump clearly has a view. One thing it has done is to demonstrate American power and finesse to hostile countries. The medium and longer term implications are, for this observer, harder to ascertain. Does America really want to "run" Venezuela? I suspect not but it wants to have a big involvement in the economic future of the country.
America may or may not really want to “run” Venezuela, but they’re no closer to doing so now than they were a year ago. The same regime is still in power. They are possibly more cowed by the threat of US military action, but actually delivering regime *change* will take a lot more than what the US has done so far, and it’s far from clear the Trump administration has the stomach and/or attention span to do that.
MAGA have fooled themselves that they’ve found some sort of cheat code to deliver what they want without the messy interventions of Afghanistan, Iraq etc., but, as with past examples where the West thought a few bombs would be enough, they haven’t.
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
It never worked.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
The US largely enforced international law since WW2 via NATO and the UN in the last century but in this century the big nations do their own thing, including the US while Trump leads it and the rest of the world have to co operate together to contain them
It's clear that we are regressing to an unashamed 'might is right' rule in geopolitics but it's really not something to celebrate.
The good news it is only temporary, soon the corporations and/or AI will take over.
And then after that - finally! - the promised land. The whole world attains slightly left of centre social democracy except with no private schools and all utilities in public ownership.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
I think a vote for no change in America if China invades Taiwan. Maybe wrong hemisphere, not interested?
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
It never worked.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
This is such a bone-headed wrong analysis of history that there’s no point even in engaging with it.
You don’t like people talking about the international rules-based order because you’re the sort of person who has literally argued in favour of ethnic cleansing.
It's clear that we are regressing to an unashamed 'might is right' rule in geopolitics but it's really not something to celebrate.
The good news it is only temporary, soon the corporations and/or AI will take over.
And then after that - finally! - the promised land. The whole world attains slightly left of centre social democracy except with no private schools and all utilities in public ownership.
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
It never worked.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
The US largely enforced international law since WW2 via NATO and the UN in the last century but in this century the big nations do their own thing, including the US while Trump leads it and the rest of the world have to co operate together to contain them
In the last century both the US, under both parties, and the USSR did as they pleased regardless of any law. And nobody ever enforced anything against them, as nobody could.
Nothing has changed.
The US will act when the interests of the US are threatened, not when the law is.
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
It never worked.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
The US largely enforced international law since WW2 via NATO and the UN in the last century but in this century the big nations do their own thing, including the US while Trump leads it and the rest of the world have to co operate together to contain them
"When a strong state operates under the principle that war is just another extension of policy, it is tempted to operate a bit like a mob boss. Every interaction with a weaker nation is tinged in some way with the threat of force: Nice little country you have there — shame if something happened to it."
"The world has seen what happens when the will to power dominates world affairs, and its leaders know (or should know) that the most catastrophic conflicts can start from the most modest beginnings."
@HiltonHotels has launched a coordinated campaign in Minneapolis to REFUSE service to DHS law enforcement.
When officers attempted to book rooms using official government emails and rates, Hilton Hotels maliciously CANCELLED their reservations.
This is UNACCEPTABLE. Why is Hilton Hotels siding with murderers and rapists to deliberately undermine and impede DHS law enforcement from their mission to enforce our nation’s immigration laws?
It's clear that we are regressing to an unashamed 'might is right' rule in geopolitics but it's really not something to celebrate.
The good news it is only temporary, soon the corporations and/or AI will take over.
And then after that - finally! - the promised land. The whole world attains slightly left of centre social democracy except with no private schools and all utilities in public ownership.
I hold this truth to be self evident.
How very odd. Have you talked to someone?
Yes. My angel.
I'm fond of you too, but... oh I see. Thought it was a comma.
Is there a point when it will become obvious to Americans that their president is less than stable? Columbia, Mexico, Cuba, Greenland, Iran (add in your favourites here) are all mentioned.
"Trump issues threats against multiple countries following Venezuela strike"
There is definitely a point where the vast majority of Americans will finally admit they were wrong about Trump. Unfortunately history tells us that that point is arrived at after there has been a little bit of trouble, to put it very mildly.
A major faux pas from a senior Polish journalist who noticed a black man in the photo from the Mar-a-lago situation room and assumed that he was a member of the resort staff:
Of course they should be worried. We all should. the world is being treated as a marionette with a lunatic pulling the strings.
Those who wanted us to Brexit so we could regain our sovereignty will hopefully be giving themselves a serious talking to and the leaders of the folly should be hung drawn and quartered
Is there anything you won't connect to Brexit? Jack the Ripper? Food in buckets? Band Aid 2?
Band Aid 2 was the Stock Aitken and Waterman one, wasn’t it? Definitely the worse. (And undoubtedly caused by Brexit.)
And furthermore a number of possible candidates for Jack the Ripper took advantage of Freedom of Movement from abroadland. This could not happen under Reform.
As to food in buckets, under Brexit we are no longer subject to stuff like this:
EU regulations for food in buckets focus on Food Contact Materials (FCMs) like plastic, requiring them to be safe (no harmful chemical migration), labelled with a food-safe symbol (wine glass/fork), and compliant with specific rules for plastics (Reg. 10/2011) and general standards (Reg 1935/2004, Reg 2023/2006 for GMP), with upcoming bans on certain single-use plastics and substances like PFAS by 2030 under the new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), ensuring traceability and recyclability
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
It never worked.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
This is such a bone-headed wrong analysis of history that there’s no point even in engaging with it.
You don’t like people talking about the international rules-based order because you’re the sort of person who has literally argued in favour of ethnic cleansing.
Ethnic cleansing has happened repeatedly post WWII, including very recently in Azerbaijan and the expulsion of the Armenians. No law has stopped it.
If ethnic cleansing meaning expulsion not death of the enemy is the least worst option to end a conflict, it should be considered.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
I think a lot depends on how the Chinese do it, and what resistance the Taiwanese put up.
If the Chinese succeed in pulling off the sort of operation the Russians were aiming for then I think most people, including Americans, would largely accommodate themselves to the new reality.
In the case that the Taiwanese are able to resist for a considerable period then I think the question arises as to why America wasn't able to do something more to help them, and it potentially has a greater impact on American politics.
More astonishing public comments from the Danish PM on Greenland.
“I believe one should take the American president seriously when he says that he wants Greenland. But I will also make it clear that if the US chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.”
All the more remarkable given that less than three years ago Mette Frederiksen was meeting another US president & being considered for the NATO sec-gen job.
NATO is already over, but nobody in any European government seems quite ready to decide what happens next so the kayfabe holds for now.
Pretty much. I suppose there's still the hope that Trump/MAGA crashes before too long and America goes back. It's demonstrating an uncanny ability to go back atm let's face it. By about a century.
It's clear that we are regressing to an unashamed 'might is right' rule in geopolitics but it's really not something to celebrate.
The good news it is only temporary, soon the corporations and/or AI will take over.
And then after that - finally! - the promised land. The whole world attains slightly left of centre social democracy except with no private schools and all utilities in public ownership.
I hold this truth to be self evident.
How very odd. Have you talked to someone?
Yes. My angel.
I'm fond of you too, but... oh I see. Thought it was a comma.
@HiltonHotels has launched a coordinated campaign in Minneapolis to REFUSE service to DHS law enforcement.
When officers attempted to book rooms using official government emails and rates, Hilton Hotels maliciously CANCELLED their reservations.
This is UNACCEPTABLE. Why is Hilton Hotels siding with murderers and rapists to deliberately undermine and impede DHS law enforcement from their mission to enforce our nation’s immigration laws?
If you believe Trump that is something that might occur before this month is over. Meanwhile in No. 10 we have Starmer who is committed to reaching 3.5% of GDP on defence spending by 2035. I sincerely hope that Starmer has been lying through his teeth for months, and behind the scenes all sorts of contingencies are being prepared for, because we might be in a very deep hole before spring arrives.
@HiltonHotels has launched a coordinated campaign in Minneapolis to REFUSE service to DHS law enforcement.
When officers attempted to book rooms using official government emails and rates, Hilton Hotels maliciously CANCELLED their reservations.
This is UNACCEPTABLE. Why is Hilton Hotels siding with murderers and rapists to deliberately undermine and impede DHS law enforcement from their mission to enforce our nation’s immigration laws?
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
I think a lot depends on how the Chinese do it, and what resistance the Taiwanese put up.
If the Chinese succeed in pulling off the sort of operation the Russians were aiming for then I think most people, including Americans, would largely accommodate themselves to the new reality.
In the case that the Taiwanese are able to resist for a considerable period then I think the question arises as to why America wasn't able to do something more to help them, and it potentially has a greater impact on American politics.
Makes sense. I think the Chinese leadership used to believe, and possibly still believes, they can take over Taiwan without a shot. China makes an offer Taiwan chooses not to refuse.
More astonishing public comments from the Danish PM on Greenland.
“I believe one should take the American president seriously when he says that he wants Greenland. But I will also make it clear that if the US chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.”
All the more remarkable given that less than three years ago Mette Frederiksen was meeting another US president & being considered for the NATO sec-gen job.
NATO is already over, but nobody in any European government seems quite ready to decide what happens next so the kayfabe holds for now.
Pretty much. I suppose there's still the hope that Trump/MAGA crashes before too long and America goes back. It's demonstrating an uncanny ability to go back atm let's face it. By about a century.
I think the trust has largely gone. Trust is a funny sort of thing. Incredibly important. Hard to create. Easy to lose.
No-one is going to trust the US for a good while now. It's too late to brush it all off as an aberration caused by one man. They elected him for a second time, knowing who he was, and they haven't stood up to him despite his craven attitude towards Putin. The US simply isn't a reliable partner for the foreseeable future.
God only knows who will be by the end of decade. Would Britain be under PM Farage? France when run by Le Pen?
Anne Applebaum @anneapplebaum A year ago, I went to Copenhagen to write about the political crisis Trump had created over Greenland. Danes told me that because the US can already do whatever it wants on the island, they had come to a conclusion: Trump just wants the U.S. to look bigger on a map
@HiltonHotels has launched a coordinated campaign in Minneapolis to REFUSE service to DHS law enforcement.
When officers attempted to book rooms using official government emails and rates, Hilton Hotels maliciously CANCELLED their reservations.
This is UNACCEPTABLE. Why is Hilton Hotels siding with murderers and rapists to deliberately undermine and impede DHS law enforcement from their mission to enforce our nation’s immigration laws?
Bet it's just the franchisee.
That seems to be the consensus on Twitter.
Probably because they don’t want pickets and protests outside.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
I think a lot depends on how the Chinese do it, and what resistance the Taiwanese put up.
If the Chinese succeed in pulling off the sort of operation the Russians were aiming for then I think most people, including Americans, would largely accommodate themselves to the new reality.
In the case that the Taiwanese are able to resist for a considerable period then I think the question arises as to why America wasn't able to do something more to help them, and it potentially has a greater impact on American politics.
Makes sense. I think the Chinese leadership used to believe, and possibly still believes, they can take over Taiwan without a shot. China makes an offer Taiwan chooses not to refuse.
But suppose they do refuse?
The question remains as to what the US do if its absolutely crucial supply of microchips is then in China hands?
There have been moves by Biden and Trump to get chip fab back to US but it aint happening soon enough at the moment.
@HiltonHotels has launched a coordinated campaign in Minneapolis to REFUSE service to DHS law enforcement.
When officers attempted to book rooms using official government emails and rates, Hilton Hotels maliciously CANCELLED their reservations.
This is UNACCEPTABLE. Why is Hilton Hotels siding with murderers and rapists to deliberately undermine and impede DHS law enforcement from their mission to enforce our nation’s immigration laws?
Bet it's just the franchisee.
That seems to be the consensus on Twitter.
Probably because they don’t want pickets and protests outside.
Be interesting to see how or if Hilton corporate responds, though.
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
It never worked.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
The US largely enforced international law since WW2 via NATO and the UN in the last century but in this century the big nations do their own thing, including the US while Trump leads it and the rest of the world have to co operate together to contain them
In the last century both the US, under both parties, and the USSR did as they pleased regardless of any law. And nobody ever enforced anything against them, as nobody could.
Nothing has changed.
The US will act when the interests of the US are threatened, not when the law is.
Not true, the Korean War and 1990 Gulf Wars for starters were both US led military actions with UN support, even the 2001 US and Nato action in Afghanistan had support from most other UN members and even from Russia
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
I think a vote for no change in America if China invades Taiwan. Maybe wrong hemisphere, not interested?
Much of Taiwan's defence equipment has come from the US but the US was never going to war with China over Taiwan, even when Biden and Obama were President. At most it would be a few sanctions on Beijing.
If Japan or S Korea were invaded the US would go to war with China or North Korea but not if Taiwan was
Is there a point that the GOP establishment finally says 'no' and actually gets congress to stop the madness?
The point they would have been willing to do that was a long time ago. Trump re-winning the presidency defeated any lingering doubts to even his crudest and most egregious behaviours, and there were not many even before then.
More astonishing public comments from the Danish PM on Greenland.
“I believe one should take the American president seriously when he says that he wants Greenland. But I will also make it clear that if the US chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.”
All the more remarkable given that less than three years ago Mette Frederiksen was meeting another US president & being considered for the NATO sec-gen job.
NATO is already over, but nobody in any European government seems quite ready to decide what happens next so the kayfabe holds for now.
Pretty much. I suppose there's still the hope that Trump/MAGA crashes before too long and America goes back. It's demonstrating an uncanny ability to go back atm let's face it. By about a century.
I think the trust has largely gone. Trust is a funny sort of thing. Incredibly important. Hard to create. Easy to lose.
No-one is going to trust the US for a good while now. It's too late to brush it all off as an aberration caused by one man. They elected him for a second time, knowing who he was, and they haven't stood up to him despite his craven attitude towards Putin. The US simply isn't a reliable partner for the foreseeable future.
God only knows who will be by the end of decade. Would Britain be under PM Farage? France when run by Le Pen?
By 2030 we could have President Buttigieg, PM Farage and President Bardella, in which case it would be the US again back leading the liberal international order and ourselves and France heading for rightwing nationalism
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
I think a lot depends on how the Chinese do it, and what resistance the Taiwanese put up.
If the Chinese succeed in pulling off the sort of operation the Russians were aiming for then I think most people, including Americans, would largely accommodate themselves to the new reality.
In the case that the Taiwanese are able to resist for a considerable period then I think the question arises as to why America wasn't able to do something more to help them, and it potentially has a greater impact on American politics.
Makes sense. I think the Chinese leadership used to believe, and possibly still believes, they can take over Taiwan without a shot. China makes an offer Taiwan chooses not to refuse.
But suppose they do refuse?
Yes. The scenario China seem to be preparing for is to put Taiwan under a full blockade and give the island an ultimatum: reunify or we'll force you.
That scenario is particularly challenging for American political leadership because it creates a situation where they would have time to respond, if they wanted to - to try and break the blockade - and acquiescing to China would be a more active decision to give way, and therefore a Chinese victory would be a more serious blow to American prestige.
It would be a bit like the Cuban Missile Crisis, and as dangerous.
There's an argument that support for Ukraine among Republicans started to go back up after they experienced the embarrassment of Trump fawning over Putin in Alaska. It made Ukrainian resistance to Russia look better in comparison to the actions of their own President.
That would suggest that Trump backing down in the scenario of a Chinese blockade of Taiwan would have major political consequences.
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
It never worked.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
The US largely enforced international law since WW2 via NATO and the UN in the last century but in this century the big nations do their own thing, including the US while Trump leads it and the rest of the world have to co operate together to contain them
In the last century both the US, under both parties, and the USSR did as they pleased regardless of any law. And nobody ever enforced anything against them, as nobody could.
Nothing has changed.
The US will act when the interests of the US are threatened, not when the law is.
Not true, the Korean War and 1990 Gulf Wars for starters were both US led military actions with UN support, even the 2001 US and Nato action in Afghanistan had support from most other UN members and even from Russia
Because the US was standing up for US interests.
When US interests aligned differently, they acted differently.
Interesting explainer on American efforts over 150 years to get their hands on Greenland. Six serious attempts, partially successful in 1946 when they simply refused to move when asked to do so at the end of the war. The difference then was they came to an agreement with Denmark - that mythical rules based order.
My takeaways: 1. The US does want Greenland. This isn't a Trump special. 2. Denmark can't stop the US doing so. 3. Greenlanders understandably are angry about how Denmark treated its colony in the past and want independence but don't think it viable without subsidies. 4. They probably would be happy to sign up with the US if the deal was right, at which point it's over for Denmark, but they mistrust Trump (for good reason)
More astonishing public comments from the Danish PM on Greenland.
“I believe one should take the American president seriously when he says that he wants Greenland. But I will also make it clear that if the US chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.”
All the more remarkable given that less than three years ago Mette Frederiksen was meeting another US president & being considered for the NATO sec-gen job.
NATO is already over, but nobody in any European government seems quite ready to decide what happens next so the kayfabe holds for now.
Pretty much. I suppose there's still the hope that Trump/MAGA crashes before too long and America goes back. It's demonstrating an uncanny ability to go back atm let's face it. By about a century.
I think the trust has largely gone. Trust is a funny sort of thing. Incredibly important. Hard to create. Easy to lose.
No-one is going to trust the US for a good while now. It's too late to brush it all off as an aberration caused by one man. They elected him for a second time, knowing who he was, and they haven't stood up to him despite his craven attitude towards Putin. The US simply isn't a reliable partner for the foreseeable future.
God only knows who will be by the end of decade. Would Britain be under PM Farage? France when run by Le Pen?
Yes it looks bleak. 5/11/24 was a catastrophic event. It's right up there.
This is OUR Hemisphere, and President Trump will not allow our security to be threatened.
That's Rotherhithe done for. Woolwich, on the other hand, is OK.
The line passes between Bromley by Bow and West Ham - very close.
I tried to figure out which (E or W) hemisphere I was born in and it turns out the line runs straight through Whipps Cross Hospital, so I’m none the wiser. I could go in there and ask where the maternity ward was on 1 Jan 1974 and take it from there I guess but I’m not quite that sad. Nearly, but not quite.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
I think a lot depends on how the Chinese do it, and what resistance the Taiwanese put up.
If the Chinese succeed in pulling off the sort of operation the Russians were aiming for then I think most people, including Americans, would largely accommodate themselves to the new reality.
In the case that the Taiwanese are able to resist for a considerable period then I think the question arises as to why America wasn't able to do something more to help them, and it potentially has a greater impact on American politics.
Makes sense. I think the Chinese leadership used to believe, and possibly still believes, they can take over Taiwan without a shot. China makes an offer Taiwan chooses not to refuse.
But suppose they do refuse?
The question remains as to what the US do if its absolutely crucial supply of microchips is then in China hands?
There have been moves by Biden and Trump to get chip fab back to US but it aint happening soon enough at the moment.
The fabs in Taiwan would be not be producing chips after a Chinese invasion, for multiple reasons. If China does seize the island the result would be a semiconductor shortage severe enough to cause a global crisis.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
I think a vote for no change in America if China invades Taiwan. Maybe wrong hemisphere, not interested?
Much of Taiwan's defence equipment has come from the US but the US was never going to war with China over Taiwan, even when Biden and Obama were President. At most it would be a few sanctions on Beijing.
Indeed. I'm interested in what effect a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would have on American perceptions of its own place in the world. It would be the first major Chinese military incursion outside China mainland since its invasion of Vietnam in 1979, which wasn't a great success for China, and in fact only the third vone ever, really - if you ignore dynastic warfare under the Empire.
More astonishing public comments from the Danish PM on Greenland.
“I believe one should take the American president seriously when he says that he wants Greenland. But I will also make it clear that if the US chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.”
All the more remarkable given that less than three years ago Mette Frederiksen was meeting another US president & being considered for the NATO sec-gen job.
NATO is already over, but nobody in any European government seems quite ready to decide what happens next so the kayfabe holds for now.
Pretty much. I suppose there's still the hope that Trump/MAGA crashes before too long and America goes back. It's demonstrating an uncanny ability to go back atm let's face it. By about a century.
I think the trust has largely gone. Trust is a funny sort of thing. Incredibly important. Hard to create. Easy to lose.
No-one is going to trust the US for a good while now. It's too late to brush it all off as an aberration caused by one man. They elected him for a second time, knowing who he was, and they haven't stood up to him despite his craven attitude towards Putin. The US simply isn't a reliable partner for the foreseeable future.
God only knows who will be by the end of decade. Would Britain be under PM Farage? France when run by Le Pen?
Yes it looks bleak. 5/11/24 was a catastrophic event. It's right up there.
It was always going to be bad, but who knew Dr Evil was running the show?
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
I think a lot depends on how the Chinese do it, and what resistance the Taiwanese put up.
If the Chinese succeed in pulling off the sort of operation the Russians were aiming for then I think most people, including Americans, would largely accommodate themselves to the new reality.
In the case that the Taiwanese are able to resist for a considerable period then I think the question arises as to why America wasn't able to do something more to help them, and it potentially has a greater impact on American politics.
Makes sense. I think the Chinese leadership used to believe, and possibly still believes, they can take over Taiwan without a shot. China makes an offer Taiwan chooses not to refuse.
But suppose they do refuse?
The question remains as to what the US do if its absolutely crucial supply of microchips is then in China hands?
There have been moves by Biden and Trump to get chip fab back to US but it aint happening soon enough at the moment.
The fabs in Taiwan would be not be producing chips after a Chinese invasion, for multiple reasons. If China does seize the island the result would be a semiconductor shortage severe enough to cause a global crisis.
We should be building up semiconductor production.
Gary Neville getting animated about the situation at Old Trafford
"This is Manchester United we're talking about here"
I like the bloke but, for its sake and his, he needs to shut up about his former club. He’s not helping it. It adds to the pressure
I'm very happy there isn't an Arsenal equivalent of Neville and Carragher. The nearest is Henry and he is a knob. They only make things worse for the club.
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
It never worked.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
The US largely enforced international law since WW2 via NATO and the UN in the last century but in this century the big nations do their own thing, including the US while Trump leads it and the rest of the world have to co operate together to contain them
In the last century both the US, under both parties, and the USSR did as they pleased regardless of any law. And nobody ever enforced anything against them, as nobody could.
Nothing has changed.
The US will act when the interests of the US are threatened, not when the law is.
Not true, the Korean War and 1990 Gulf Wars for starters were both US led military actions with UN support, even the 2001 US and Nato action in Afghanistan had support from most other UN members and even from Russia
Because the US was standing up for US interests.
When US interests aligned differently, they acted differently.
Realpolitik, not law.
Yes and no. The USA’s establishment, from 1948 onwards, certainly saw their long-term strategic interest as involving the creation of stable, democratic, states, and forming military partnerships with such states. Likewise, they provided Marshall Aid, and created the WTO and GATT, not out of charity, but out of enlightened self interest.
That involved acceptance of rules, because it was in their long term interest to accept them.
The Trump approach is to go for the short-term rip off, at the expense of alienating former allies. Given the USA’s military power , that can work for a time, but it will leave the US weaker.
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
It never worked.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
The US largely enforced international law since WW2 via NATO and the UN in the last century but in this century the big nations do their own thing, including the US while Trump leads it and the rest of the world have to co operate together to contain them
In the last century both the US, under both parties, and the USSR did as they pleased regardless of any law. And nobody ever enforced anything against them, as nobody could.
Nothing has changed.
The US will act when the interests of the US are threatened, not when the law is.
Not true, the Korean War and 1990 Gulf Wars for starters were both US led military actions with UN support, even the 2001 US and Nato action in Afghanistan had support from most other UN members and even from Russia
Because the US was standing up for US interests.
When US interests aligned differently, they acted differently.
Realpolitik, not law.
You’re right and I think Trevor Phillips hits the nail on the head here.
The difference between the Trumpdozer and other Presidents is style, effectively.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
I think a lot depends on how the Chinese do it, and what resistance the Taiwanese put up.
If the Chinese succeed in pulling off the sort of operation the Russians were aiming for then I think most people, including Americans, would largely accommodate themselves to the new reality.
In the case that the Taiwanese are able to resist for a considerable period then I think the question arises as to why America wasn't able to do something more to help them, and it potentially has a greater impact on American politics.
Makes sense. I think the Chinese leadership used to believe, and possibly still believes, they can take over Taiwan without a shot. China makes an offer Taiwan chooses not to refuse.
But suppose they do refuse?
That’s why there are partial mockups of Taipei in the Chinese deserts.
"David Blair Trump is forcing us to confront the world as it really is. That’s a good thing Maduro’s capture proves the US president has ripped up the international rulebook – yet Britain can benefit from this new, hard reality"
@HiltonHotels has launched a coordinated campaign in Minneapolis to REFUSE service to DHS law enforcement.
When officers attempted to book rooms using official government emails and rates, Hilton Hotels maliciously CANCELLED their reservations.
This is UNACCEPTABLE. Why is Hilton Hotels siding with murderers and rapists to deliberately undermine and impede DHS law enforcement from their mission to enforce our nation’s immigration laws?
Bet it's just the franchisee.
That seems to be the consensus on Twitter.
Probably because they don’t want pickets and protests outside.
Be interesting to see how or if Hilton corporate responds, though.
A few people tagged them on Twitter but they don’t seem to have been active for a while.
However they reply I don’t think they will satisfy everyone. But, as you say, be interesting to see how they respond.
Looking for flickers of light amongst all the gloom, could the evident competence with which the US military carried out the Maduro capture cause some serious questioning among Russians?
This is OUR Hemisphere, and President Trump will not allow our security to be threatened.
That's Rotherhithe done for. Woolwich, on the other hand, is OK.
The line passes between Bromley by Bow and West Ham - very close.
I tried to figure out which (E or W) hemisphere I was born in and it turns out the line runs straight through Whipps Cross Hospital, so I’m none the wiser. I could go in there and ask where the maternity ward was on 1 Jan 1974 and take it from there I guess but I’m not quite that sad. Nearly, but not quite.
West according to this !!
Bromley by Bow and West Ham seem to have relocated.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
I think a lot depends on how the Chinese do it, and what resistance the Taiwanese put up.
If the Chinese succeed in pulling off the sort of operation the Russians were aiming for then I think most people, including Americans, would largely accommodate themselves to the new reality.
In the case that the Taiwanese are able to resist for a considerable period then I think the question arises as to why America wasn't able to do something more to help them, and it potentially has a greater impact on American politics.
Makes sense. I think the Chinese leadership used to believe, and possibly still believes, they can take over Taiwan without a shot. China makes an offer Taiwan chooses not to refuse.
But suppose they do refuse?
The question remains as to what the US do if its absolutely crucial supply of microchips is then in China hands?
There have been moves by Biden and Trump to get chip fab back to US but it aint happening soon enough at the moment.
The fabs in Taiwan would be not be producing chips after a Chinese invasion, for multiple reasons. If China does seize the island the result would be a semiconductor shortage severe enough to cause a global crisis.
We should be building up semiconductor production.
But we sold it all off and also cut the research funding for it.
Are you suggesting our elders and betters made some sort of miscalculation based on short term thinking and rewards?
Looking for flickers of light amongst all the gloom, could the evident competence with which the US military carried out the Maduro capture cause some serious questioning among Russians?
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
America has had a One China policy based on Beijing not Taipei since Nixon, even if it has supplied Taiwan with defence equipment
I think a vote for no change in America if China invades Taiwan. Maybe wrong hemisphere, not interested?
Much of Taiwan's defence equipment has come from the US but the US was never going to war with China over Taiwan, even when Biden and Obama were President. At most it would be a few sanctions on Beijing.
If Japan or S Korea were invaded the US would go to war with China or North Korea but not if Taiwan was
Can you explain why you are so confident that the US won't go to eat with China to defend Taiwan?
There's an awful lot of commentary and analysis predicated on the idea that they might, so I'd be interested in your reasoning.
Interested in people's views. If China does move to occupy Taiwan in the next year or so I presume America does nothing to stop them - what would the effect be on America? Would they see that as a wake up call and time to stop this self indulgent nonsense, or would they double down?
I think a lot depends on how the Chinese do it, and what resistance the Taiwanese put up.
If the Chinese succeed in pulling off the sort of operation the Russians were aiming for then I think most people, including Americans, would largely accommodate themselves to the new reality.
In the case that the Taiwanese are able to resist for a considerable period then I think the question arises as to why America wasn't able to do something more to help them, and it potentially has a greater impact on American politics.
Makes sense. I think the Chinese leadership used to believe, and possibly still believes, they can take over Taiwan without a shot. China makes an offer Taiwan chooses not to refuse.
But suppose they do refuse?
The question remains as to what the US do if its absolutely crucial supply of microchips is then in China hands?
There have been moves by Biden and Trump to get chip fab back to US but it aint happening soon enough at the moment.
The fabs in Taiwan would be not be producing chips after a Chinese invasion, for multiple reasons. If China does seize the island the result would be a semiconductor shortage severe enough to cause a global crisis.
We should be building up semiconductor production.
Yes, we should. But that's the work of decades. And even so, the idea of semiconductor sovereignty - such as the US is trying for - is absurd. Unless you specifically ban companies from using foreign produced chips, which would be a severe competitive disadvantage, they will still do so and any interruption in supply will cause major problems.
Producing semiconductors domestically means many of them will be reassuringly expensive, simply due to scale. A Chinese manufacturer building billions of a small, cheap parts may be able to pump them out at 6p each in quantities of 10,000. But if you're a UK producer making millions each year then you may need to charge 25p per unit. Nobody will pay the extra unless they're required to do so for security reasons.
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.
Oh what sanctimonious claptrap.
The rules based international order never existed. It was always a utopian myth, not an actual reality.
Forget about how nice it would be to have one and deal with the cold, hard, realistic facts that countries have ALWAYS broken the rules. There has never been a time when it was not the case, as much as it would be nice were it to be the case.
A desire for utopia is not a reason to claim it exists, or act as if it does.
I'm confused. You state that "the rules-based international order never existed". You then state that "countries have ALWAYS broken the rules".
How can countries break rules that never existed?
Rules existed.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
People have always done as they please, ignoring the rule when they do not suit them. But we still have rules.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
It never worked.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
The US largely enforced international law since WW2 via NATO and the UN in the last century but in this century the big nations do their own thing, including the US while Trump leads it and the rest of the world have to co operate together to contain them
In the last century both the US, under both parties, and the USSR did as they pleased regardless of any law. And nobody ever enforced anything against them, as nobody could.
Nothing has changed.
The US will act when the interests of the US are threatened, not when the law is.
Not true, the Korean War and 1990 Gulf Wars for starters were both US led military actions with UN support, even the 2001 US and Nato action in Afghanistan had support from most other UN members and even from Russia
Because the US was standing up for US interests.
When US interests aligned differently, they acted differently.
Realpolitik, not law.
Yes and no. The USA’s establishment, from 1948 onwards, certainly saw their long-term strategic interest as involving the creation of stable, democratic, states, and forming military partnerships with such states. Likewise, they provided Marshall Aid, and created the WTO and GATT, not out of charity, but out of enlightened self interest.
That involved acceptance of rules, because it was in their long term interest to accept them.
The Trump approach is to go for the short-term rip off, at the expense of alienating former allies. Given the USA’s military power , that can work for a time, but it will leave the US weaker.
Oh I 100% totally agree the US screwing erstwhile allies is a stupid and self defeating idea.
It hurts US interests, not merely the law.
The US has been willing to break the law against its enemies throughout time. Turning on her allies is the mistake.
If you believe Trump that is something that might occur before this month is over. Meanwhile in No. 10 we have Starmer who is committed to reaching 3.5% of GDP on defence spending by 2035. I sincerely hope that Starmer has been lying through his teeth for months, and behind the scenes all sorts of contingencies are being prepared for, because we might be in a very deep hole before spring arrives.
If Trump annexes Greenland just before the May elections, it's going to give quite a few party leaders some interesting questions to answer.
Comments
For example, Marco Rubio talks about defunding NGOs and switching to a model of working directly with governments around the world. Is this self-indulgent nonsense?
https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/2007517425382613251
The United States has spent billions of dollars over the years in helping with health strategies all across the world. What we learned over time and especially after coming here, is that oftentimes - and I'm oversimplifying it but this is an accurate description - what would happen is we would go to a country and say we're going to help you with your health care needs. Then we would drive over to western - northern Virginia somewhere, find an NGO, one of these organizations, give them all the money, tell them go to this country and do their health care program for them. That NGO would then take about - some percentage of that money for their overhead and administrative costs, and by the time it got down to it, the host country had very little influence, it was sort of imposed on them, and only a percentage of the overall money ever actually reached the patients and the people on the ground that we were trying to help because of these costs.
This makes no sense. So why are we hiring American and international NGOs to go into other countries and run health care systems that are parallel and sometimes in conflict with the health care systems of the host country? If we're trying to help countries, help the country, don't help the NGO to go in and find a new line of business. And so that's what - the model that we're breaking. We're not doing this anymore. We are not going to spend billions of dollars funding the NGO industrial complex while close and important partners like Kenya are - either have no role to play or have very little influence over how health care money is being spent. Bottom line is if you want to help a country, work with that country, not work with a third party that imposes things on that country.
Rules based international order did not.
Countries have always done as they please, ignoring the rules when they do not suit them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVmHHlgMOi4
NGO’s and large ‘charities’ taking the cash to ‘manage’ the project.
@implausibleblog
·
48m
Danish PM Mette Frederiksen says if the US attacks Greenland, NATO Is over
https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/2008244916900491641
And NATO is already effectively over when its primary enforcer openly despises most of the rest of it.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-protests-ayatollah-khamenei-flee-plan-intelligence-b2894774.html
https://x.com/johnmcternan/status/2007518325765808544?s=61
https://x.com/Marekwalkuski/status/2008225862252908741
@Peston
Sir Keir Starmer routinely describes his friendly relations with Donald Trump as a great asset to the UK. Trump himself though is a living nightmare for the British prime minister and his ambitions to revive his and his party’s fortunes.
One reason is that every time Trump executes one of his “I-can’t-believe-he-just-did-that” policies, nothing that Starmer says or does is heard by anyone.
Starmer was for example hoping to usher in the new year by advertising all the ways he is bringing down the cost of living. But did you notice him in Reading this morning when he boasted about his railway fairs freeze and discounts?
I’d be surprised.
Because anything Starmer wants to say about pretty much anything is being drowned out by Trump’s seizure of the Venezuelan president, in just the latest manifestation of what you might call a new American exceptionalism - which is a euphemism for Trump sticking two fingers up at allies like the UK who think the United Nations and international law are worth cherishing and preserving.
https://x.com/Peston/status/2008241350689354005
There's about five thousand more words if you feel the need for more Pestographics.
Shashank Joshi
@shashj
More astonishing public comments from the Danish PM on Greenland.
“I believe one should take the American president seriously when he says that he wants Greenland. But I will also make it clear that if the US chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.”
All the more remarkable given that less than three years ago Mette Frederiksen was meeting another US president & being considered for the NATO sec-gen job.
The rules-based international order worked and can still work because most countries are persuaded to follow the rules. That’s particularly true if the big, powerful countries do so, of course!
(And what a disaster that would prove to be)
Anne Applebaum
@anneapplebaum
A year ago, I went to Copenhagen to write about the political crisis Trump had created over Greenland. Danes told me that because the US can already do whatever it wants on the island, they had come to a conclusion: Trump just wants the U.S. to look bigger on a map
https://x.com/anneapplebaum/status/2008083993246179634
The use or threat of force as a part of diplomacy has been a part of human history - the use of money or capital is a more recent phenomenon but is an integral part of how nations function. When we had an Empire, we used both military and economic force to build and maintain it - it didn't always work and it doesn't always work.
As an example, William of Normandy invaded England in 1066 primarily because we had a prosperous agricultural economy with strong trade to Flanders and a healthy supply of silver which was currency.
I would argue we have, whether out of fear or choice, built in some limitations. Nuclear and biological warfare represents such an existential threat to the species we have used them sparingly - we know (and that means the people who matter know) the consequences of nuclear escalation or the use of chemical weapons.
Technology (rightly or wrongly) has allowed a degree of precision of destruction hitherto unseen. We don't have to level a city if we want to decapitate or excise a regime not to our liking but as we know removing a tyrant rarely leads to a happy or peaceful future for the population as would-be successors jostle for power. Libya is one example - Iraq was another, Afghanistan arguably a third.
I really don't know what the incursion into Venezuela has achieved at this time - Trump clearly has a view. One thing it has done is to demonstrate American power and finesse to hostile countries. The medium and longer term implications are, for this observer, harder to ascertain. Does America really want to "run" Venezuela? I suspect not but it wants to have a big involvement in the economic future of the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisition_of_Greenland
My takeaways:
1. The US does want Greenland. This isn't a Trump special.
2. Denmark can't stop the US doing so.
3. Greenlanders understandably are angry about how Denmark treated its colony in the past and want independence but don't think it viable without subsidies.
4. They probably would be happy to sign up with the US if the deal was right, at which point it's over for Denmark, but they mistrust Trump (for good reason)
I hold this truth to be self evident.
The big, powerful countries never have done, which is why.
We can choose to do so voluntarily if we please, but if we do so, we should be under absolutely no illusions that influences whether the US, China, Russia or any other country will do so. Because they won't. They never have.
MAGA have fooled themselves that they’ve found some sort of cheat code to deliver what they want without the messy interventions of Afghanistan, Iraq etc., but, as with past examples where the West thought a few bombs would be enough, they haven’t.
You don’t like people talking about the international rules-based order because you’re the sort of person who has literally argued in favour of ethnic cleansing.
Nothing has changed.
The US will act when the interests of the US are threatened, not when the law is.
"When a strong state operates under the principle that war is just another extension of policy, it is tempted to operate a bit like a mob boss. Every interaction with a weaker nation is tinged in some way with the threat of force: Nice little country you have there — shame if something happened to it."
"The world has seen what happens when the will to power dominates world affairs, and its leaders know (or should know) that the most catastrophic conflicts can start from the most modest beginnings."
David French - Trump Is Unleashing Forces Beyond His Control
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/05/opinion/trump-venezuela-maduro-clausewitz-aquinas.html
@HiltonHotels has launched a coordinated campaign in Minneapolis to REFUSE service to DHS law enforcement.
When officers attempted to book rooms using official government emails and rates, Hilton Hotels maliciously CANCELLED their reservations.
This is UNACCEPTABLE. Why is Hilton Hotels siding with murderers and rapists to deliberately undermine and impede DHS law enforcement from their mission to enforce our nation’s immigration laws?
As to food in buckets, under Brexit we are no longer subject to stuff like this:
EU regulations for food in buckets focus on Food Contact Materials (FCMs) like plastic, requiring them to be safe (no harmful chemical migration), labelled with a food-safe symbol (wine glass/fork), and compliant with specific rules for plastics (Reg. 10/2011) and general standards (Reg 1935/2004, Reg 2023/2006 for GMP), with upcoming bans on certain single-use plastics and substances like PFAS by 2030 under the new Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), ensuring traceability and recyclability
(AI helped with the last one)
If ethnic cleansing meaning expulsion not death of the enemy is the least worst option to end a conflict, it should be considered.
If the Chinese succeed in pulling off the sort of operation the Russians were aiming for then I think most people, including Americans, would largely accommodate themselves to the new reality.
In the case that the Taiwanese are able to resist for a considerable period then I think the question arises as to why America wasn't able to do something more to help them, and it potentially has a greater impact on American politics.
But suppose they do refuse?
No-one is going to trust the US for a good while now. It's too late to brush it all off as an aberration caused by one man. They elected him for a second time, knowing who he was, and they haven't stood up to him despite his craven attitude towards Putin. The US simply isn't a reliable partner for the foreseeable future.
God only knows who will be by the end of decade. Would Britain be under PM Farage? France when run by Le Pen?
On-topic: off to Taiwan in two days. An invasion of sorts, but not the bad kind.
Renaming the capital new Trump City might have avoided many issues.
Probably because they don’t want pickets and protests outside.
There have been moves by Biden and Trump to get chip fab back to US but it aint happening soon enough at the moment.
If Japan or S Korea were invaded the US would go to war with China or North Korea but not if Taiwan was
That scenario is particularly challenging for American political leadership because it creates a situation where they would have time to respond, if they wanted to - to try and break the blockade - and acquiescing to China would be a more active decision to give way, and therefore a Chinese victory would be a more serious blow to American prestige.
It would be a bit like the Cuban Missile Crisis, and as dangerous.
There's an argument that support for Ukraine among Republicans started to go back up after they experienced the embarrassment of Trump fawning over Putin in Alaska. It made Ukrainian resistance to Russia look better in comparison to the actions of their own President.
That would suggest that Trump backing down in the scenario of a Chinese blockade of Taiwan would have major political consequences.
When US interests aligned differently, they acted differently.
Realpolitik, not law.
“The survey was conducted by Verian for Danish newspaper Berlingske and Greenlandic media Sermitsiaq between 22 January and 27 January 2025.”
“Only 6% are in favour of becoming part of the US.”
(I Forgot Korea of course!)
That involved acceptance of rules, because it was in their long term interest to accept them.
The Trump approach is to go for the short-term rip off, at the expense of alienating former allies. Given the USA’s military power , that can work for a time, but it will leave the US weaker.
The difference between the Trumpdozer and other Presidents is style, effectively.
https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/2008114327807520875?s=61
Trump is forcing us to confront the world as it really is. That’s a good thing
Maduro’s capture proves the US president has ripped up the international rulebook – yet Britain can benefit from this new, hard reality"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/05/trump-venezuelas-maduro-end-pretence-david-blair/
However they reply I don’t think they will satisfy everyone. But, as you say, be interesting to see how they respond.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/05/russia-weighs-up-fall-of-nicolas-maduro-venezuela
Bromley by Bow and West Ham seem to have relocated.
https://x.com/terriblemaps/status/2008176324318564735?s=61
Are you suggesting our elders and betters made some sort of miscalculation based on short term thinking and rewards?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2026/jan/05/uk-venezuela-response-starmer-trump-labour-conservatives-latest-news-updates?filterKeyEvents=false
There's an awful lot of commentary and analysis predicated on the idea that they might, so I'd be interested in your reasoning.
Producing semiconductors domestically means many of them will be reassuringly expensive, simply due to scale. A Chinese manufacturer building billions of a small, cheap parts may be able to pump them out at 6p each in quantities of 10,000. But if you're a UK producer making millions each year then you may need to charge 25p per unit. Nobody will pay the extra unless they're required to do so for security reasons.
It hurts US interests, not merely the law.
The US has been willing to break the law against its enemies throughout time. Turning on her allies is the mistake.
"Hilarity ensues"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crklvx2n7rzo.amp
"What to know about China and Japan's escalating spat over Taiwan"