British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Just strike off America, and the remaining 31 can be whatever name works. North Atlantic still works I guess because Canada, Greenland (via Denmark), Iceland and UK?
With a little luck the wingnut cockwomble will withdraw soon anyway cos his Russian handler will tell him to. OTOH, Putin might want him to stay in to **** with NATO involvement.
Do you guys ever consider there is a chance that Putin just wants to recreate his version of a Russian empire, which would include areas like Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia (which were all part of former Russian empires) and not extend farther than this, and Europe is not really in any existential danger?
And all the extreme anti-Russia and especially anti-US rhetoric isn't useful or productive.
As I mentioned before, it isn't obvious to me that Russia is any worse than Turkey, except that ironically we look the other way with Turkey because they are viewed as a useful "ally" geopolitically.
The truth is most of the world sucks, and doesn't care at all about the bad behavior that nations like Turkey, Russia and China. But we still have to live in this world, and navigate relationships with a world that mostly sucks.
Do you guys ever consider there is a chance that Putin just wants to recreate his version of a Russian empire, which would include areas like Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia (which were all part of former Russian empires) and not extend farther than this, and Europe is not really in any existential danger?And all the extreme anti-Russia and especially anti-US rhetoric isn't useful
It's not anti US or Russian rhetoric- it's the POTUS siding with an aggressor. The aggressor being Russia, who are led by an empire wanting dictator who murders dissidents and Vance has some neck lecturing Europe re free speech while getting into bed with Russia. Act like a dick and you tend to get regarded as one. Turkey is just whataboutism on your part as currently Ukraine is the relevant issue rather than generalised geopolitics. You'll probably get into bed with China next.
As I said, I agree that nobody should take the US for granted and the EU should have strengthened their respective military forces. But America, via the Trump administration's current stance, has shown its allies that it can't be trusted. (as if throwing the Kurds under the bus wasn't enough advance warning). Add Vance courting the German far right and it really doesn't make America look good in the eyes of the world. You want isolationsism, you'll get it, along with any feelings of good will toward you, if you choose to side with thugs.
Do you guys ever consider there is a chance that Putin just wants to recreate his version of a Russian empire, which would include areas like Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia (which were all part of former Russian empires) and not extend farther than this, and Europe is not really in any existential danger?
[...]
This post makes no sense, and I will demonstrate all the ways in which it makes no sense.
1. Geographically: If Putin uses military force to recreate some misguided illusion about the Russian empire, then Europe is in existential danger.
2. Logically: Many European countries have historically laid claim to vastly larger borders than they currently have. If everybody started making irredentist claims, you'd have hundreds of wars on a continent of 50 states.
4. Historically: If we make a list of things that puts an end to imperialist ambition, successfully expanding is at the absolutely bottom of such a list.
5. Strategically: You are suggesting that the strategy to beat an aggressor is to end alliances and sacrifice partners. This is the opposite of what you should do.
6. Tactically: You do not become more secure by handing an aggressor more advantageous territory to invade you from.
And while not all that relevant to your post, to rebuild the Russian Empire, Russia would also have to conquer territory from the US.
It's not anti US or Russian rhetoric- it's the POTUS siding with an aggressor. The aggressor being Russia, who are led by an empire wanting dictator who murders dissidents and Vance has some neck lecturing Europe re free speech while getting into bed with Russia. Act like a dick and you tend to get regarded as one.
The Kurds in Rojava and minority groups throughout Turkey's sphere of influence who have been the direct recipient of Turkish genocide might disagree with this. Turkey also is a main supporter of Hamas, so Israelis might disagree with this.
Ukraine is the main issue to you, because you care about Ukraine/Europe and dont care about Rojava. And a big part of the reason you selectively care is because European elites/media have decided to look the other way when it comes to Turkey, for mostly selfish realpolitik reasons. There are certainly no first principles involved.
Do you have any idea how many journalists, judges, politicians, activists Erdogan has thrown in jail for dissent over his totalitarian rule. Probably per capita more than Putin.
EU efforts seems likely to be blocked by leaders on Putin's payroll, and I don't know if there are ways around that.Using the NATO framework would be the most logical options, as most of the armed forces are already trained on NATO doctrine and logistics. With the collapse of the US as a security partner the question now is whether Europe can move fast enough. I can guarantee
This could be difficult, as the Russians appear to have expended their trained military manpower in Ukraine and are currently incurring large losses to make minimal gains against a theoretically weaker opponent. (And the poor North Koreans, going by those captured, don't know where they are or what they're doing there.) Russia is also short of armour, producing and refurbishing only small batches since the Ukraine invasion, against enormous losses (
). And Russia can't seem to produce new fighter jets in any numbers, and its old ones are shot and are not making any impression.
So Putin's tactic to recreate the USSR of his youth is a mainly political one, to prise the US apart from Western Europe. Because Trump is such a mug, Putin thinks he's getting somewhere, but he's really just making the US look ridiculous. (Trump's envoy just ducked out of a press conference with Zelensky, evidently because he knew he had no face-saver to report.) In regard to the Baltic states, NATO still has a policy of 'Baltic air policing' with Allied air forces providing constant fighter cover (https://ac.nato.int/missions/air-policin...). Doesn't really matter if the Americans renege. Putin's rusty cast-iron air force can't contend with Rafales or Typhoons, and Putin can't afford to trip the wire of NATO Article 5. If he were counting on a US veto of Article 5, he might be one of the last people in the world to realise that you cannot count on Donald Trump.
Maybe I am just being naive, but when enough time passes I think Russia is going to want to normalize with the west, as long as the door is still open.
At the end of the day Russians see themselves as part of the western world culturally, and that matters.
Russian elites still teach their kids English and want to holiday in Switzerland and France.
They aren’t teaching their kids Hindi and mandarin and planning holidays in china.
I really question if they have the ambition and I definitely don’t think they have the capacity to conquer Europe.
I am not saying this is a righteous war on Russias part. But I think the alarmism that we can’t make peace because Russia will just be enabled to push further west isn’t correct.
Maybe I am just being naive, but when enough time passes I think Russia is going to want to normalize with the west, as long as the door is still open. At the end of the day Russians see themselves as part of the western world culturally, and that matters. Russian elites still teach their kids English and want to holiday in Switzerland and France. They aren’t teaching their k
the "long term" will depend greatly on what comes after Putin (which could be 2, 5, 10, 15 years from now, but not much more than that).
too many things can happen in between, to great uncertainty to make any call, almost all scenarios are possible tbh.
ofc Russia has no capability even to conquer the whole of Ukraine nevermind Europe lol
Maybe I am just being naive, but when enough time passes I think Russia is going to want to normalize with the west, as long as the door is still open. At the end of the day Russians see themselves as part of the western world culturally, and that matters. Russian elites still teach their kids English and want to holiday in Switzerland and France. They aren’t teaching t
Yes, this is naive. You are doing the traditional mistake of looking at the side of Russia that is facing westwards and thinking it represents the nation.
There have since imperial times been groups in Russia that want it to align with the western world, but these groups have a history of being viewed with suspicion to outright aggression depending on where you are in Russia's traditional cycle of "attempting democracy" to "regressing into despotism". I would even posit that one of the reason liberalization often fails in Russia is because it is viewed as "western", thus making it easier to dismiss.
The current reigning ideology in Russia is that the western world is weak, immoral and at war with Russia. While this view does not reflect all Russians, it is a popular view. As for western-aligned conservatives who think the same and find themselves drawn to this Russian movement, I'm guessing they are mostly viewed as something akin to a cute monkey; amusing, but not something you bring into the house.
If you told a Russian that Russians see themselves as part of the western world, the response would likely exist somewhere on a scale ranging from dismissive laughter to fistfight.
This could be difficult, as the Russians appear to have expended their trained military manpower in Ukraine and are currently incurring large losses to make minimal gains against a theoretically weaker opponent. (And the poor North Koreans, going by those captured, don't know where they are or what they're doing there.) Russia is also short of armour, producing and refurbishing
I'm not that concerned with who "wins" such a war, I'm concerned that we're approaching a point where miscalculations will be made and we will start falling down the slippery slope.
Anyways, I am derailing this thread which is dedicated to British politics, so I will stop for now. But it was nice to discuss this topic without the troll crowd in the Ukraine-threads.
What Merz is saying about not relying on the US for defence is completely correct. Hope Starmer gets behind that.
I think it goes further, we cannot rely on US for rational trading with the old orange tariff-waver. Trump is, at best, an unreliable actor, at worst actively hostile.
Pandering is a terrible idea at this point.
What Merz is saying about not relying on the US for defence is completely correct. Hope Starmer gets behind that.
It's obviously not been a good first year for Starmer, but it feels like he's making the right noises on Ukraine post-Trump inauguration. Who knows if he'll follow through.
He is going to back trump in partitioning ukraine. I largely give him a pass because we have very limited power and the uk has been pretty good considering. Ukraine has been tragically let down by the west (no suprise) and is exhausted.
What is really bad is the spineless pompous arse once again going on about hard choices as he makes the poorest pay rather than those who could afford to. Tacking the rich powerful people would be the hard choice for him but as always he takes the easy option of picking on the weak and vulnerable. The aid budget is the easiest choice of all for him.
What Merz is saying about not relying on the US for defence is completely correct. Hope Starmer gets behind that.
I think it goes further, we cannot rely on US for rational trading with the old orange tariff-waver. Trump is, at best, an unreliable actor, at worst actively hostile.
Pandering is a terrible idea at this point.
Well, it goes both ways. Europe should put the brakes on providing intelligence and security assistance to the US.
Not really because the US does all the wrong things, because this isn't really a game of morals. More because the US government currently decides its foreign policy based on what gives the best political engagement on social media, with little rhyme or reason beyond that. This isn't a good partner to hinge your national security on.
There are those who try to find some kind of strategic game in the current US foreign policy, but my take is that these people are making a mistake. The simple truth is that the current US administration really is as incompetent as it seems, there is no grand play and the clever boys and girls aren't allowed to play because they make the influencers playing dress-up look bad.
Of course, the US is a powerful country regardless if it is steered by incompetent morons, so diplomatic overtures holds value. Still, I suspect that these days it is more about who is best at filling the pockets of various Trump administration members than good policy. In that game the democracies of Europe will always lose out to countries with no transparency.
Europe should also seek to capitalize on the coming brain drain of the US economy. With few countries in Europe matching the middle class lifestyle of the US, it has always been a big hurdle to bring in American talent or foreign talent educated in America. This has been especially true the last decade.
With recent developments there is probably a lot of brilliant people looking for work and opportunity elsewhere, and I suspect this will accelerate unless the Trump administration is stalled by congress... a development that seems unlikely insofar as the current GOP majorities are controlled by people whom seem to know very little about how their branch of government can work.
The law is for goods with location trackers. That's mostly phones.
I suspect 'stolen phones' is also what the focus groups tell em.
and straight from Reform's election manifesto.
Also, I'm not sure Ukraine has been "tragically let down by The West". In hindsight, we could have gone further but we couldn't have gone much further without direct NATO involvement and the inherent risks associated with that.
let down by Trump's America is what it really is. So Europe does need to step up unless the situation creates another Versailles for Ukraine.
The law is for goods with location trackers. That's mostly phones.
I suspect 'stolen phones' is also what the focus groups tell em.
Stolen phones tend to move on (abroad) very fast. If police had to wait to get a magistrate to sign a warrant, despite knowing the location, the phones would be gone. The new rule might actually encourage to the police to turn up and do something for once, which is quite difficult to achieve. And that in turn might complicate things for that pervasive kind of organised crime.
and straight from Reform's election manifesto.
Also, I'm not sure Ukraine has been "tragically let down by The West". In hindsight, we could have gone further but we couldn't have gone much further without direct NATO involvement and the inherent risks associated with that.
If the west had been remotely honest with the Ukrainian people about willing to assist them in suffering a long slow devastating ordeal then that would been awful imo but at least would have given ukraine the option of moving quickly to end they will most likely suffer anyway. Instead we posture and bluster and fail.
No hindsight is required. It's what we do.
If the west had been remotely honest with the Ukrainian people about willing to assist them in suffering a long slow devastating ordeal then that would been awful imo but at least would have given ukraine the option of moving quickly to end they will most likely suffer anyway. Instead we posture and bluster and fail.
No hindsight is required. It's what we do.
remember that we didn't owe them absolutely anything at all. so every single euro we gave them, and every single Ukrainian we took in as a refuge, that's already doing more than what we "had to", which is absolutely, completly nothing.
enough of this insane idea that for some reason we have a moral obligation to save everyone worldwide and if we sacrifice a lot but not EVERYTHING them for some reason we are the guilty party for **** sake.
we did a lot more than we have done for Ukraine. especially given how horrible the economy is and has been for a while in many European countries.
we spent 150 blin in help to that shithole kleptocratic country + 5bln/month to host their refugees + the massively increased cost of energy and food at home for us because we sanctioned Russia.
we did that in part because we are mentally ******ed (the suicidal sanctions) in part because it was ok for us to see Russia bleed (and countries which aren't our allies shouldn't be allowed to conquer other countries) .
but what the actual hell is this stance according to which we should have done even more for what was objectively and measurably one of the worst countries in the world outside of africa in 2021?
