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.
JFC, I used to work in the NHS, and remember when PFI came in, and arguing with some pen pusher how horrible it will be, whilst they banged on about how it could modernise what building would be used and eventually save tons of money.
**** PFI, Tony and Gordon either evil little trolls or just plain incompetent fools for letting that genie out the bottle. Either way, they are a pair of total bastards.
I'm hoping we quickly get to a point where the UK gov and the rest of the world realise the USA is now a hostile actor on the world stage, and act accordingly, and do not go for appeasement in the hope Trump sees the error of his ways. It's too serious for the world to kowtow to the whims of this man-child.
The Special Relationship (aka Britain being America's poodle) on top of Brexit is going to severely **** us.
Prepare to fry.
I don't think the European powers are going to accept a private deal on Ukraine between Putin and Trump. I certainly hope not. Starmer is off to Paris to see Macron and other European leaders.
Ukraine shouldn't be expected to hand Trump $500bn of minerals for nothing, as he's demanding. The US only has skeleton forces in Europe now, its commitment to NATO is insignificant, so the Europeans are going to have to step up and sideline the unreliable dictator-fancying ally. This will mean a much higher defence spend, but in the 1980s we were spending 6% of GDP on defence, so it can be done.
The Special Relationship (aka Britain being America's poodle) on top of Brexit is going to severely **** us.
Prepare to fry.
The UK stopped Obama attacking Iran, on advice that it was unlawful, simply by denying the US the use of British air bases at Fairford, and in East Anglia, and Akrotiri, and Diego Garcia. Along with the other European powers, we can probably make ourselves a bit more inconvenient than Trump imagines.
Amazing how 6% of GDP p.a. (~ £200 billion) suddenly "can be done" when we "couldn't afford" the £30 billion to keep pensioners from freezing in their homes last winter.
I'm hoping we quickly get to a point where the UK gov and the rest of the world realise the USA is now a hostile actor on the world stage, and act accordingly, and do not go for appeasement in the hope Trump sees the error of his ways. It's too serious for the world to kowtow to the whims of this man-child.
It's atad late
This is the debate we should have been having about the EU for 20 years or so leading up to the referendum. The endless bollocks talked about economics and queues at custom etc when the real issue was do we want to be part of something that can stand up for itself geopolitically or be dependent on a usa we could clearly not depend upon.
Maybe we didn't want to be part of a developing EU Political Union but at least it would been a sensible debate. The choices were continuing to develop the EU, being a tiny partner beholden to the usa sphere of influence or trying to ride both horses. Or maybe worse
It's a point I made repeatedly here - to be part of a strong buffer between the US and the East and prevent escalation of tensions.
Back then I didn't realise it would be the US + Russia vs Europe.
The changes in world politics that need this have only really become clear in the last few days (and yes, you can always say we knew it was coming, but the sheer scale of the USA's hostile intent was not that clear up till now imo), so it's not too late, but a radical shift in Europe needs to take place. I just hope the usual EU kick the can down the road nonsense doesn't delay it.
The changes in world politics that need this have only really become clear in the last few days (and yes, you can always say we knew it was coming, but the sheer scale of the USA's hostile intent was not that clear up till now imo), so it's not too late, but a radical shift in Europe needs to take place. I just hope the usual EU kick the can down the road nonsense doesn't del
it's not about "kicking it" this time, it's about the fact that we don't agree on fundamentals.
not all countries are willing to suicide themselves economically to try to keep Ukraine viable as a sovereign state for example.
the vague idea that we need more defense expense and we need to be able to manage our **** without external help is agreed upon.
but lol at the idea there is any consensus about Ukraine, free speech, the green economy, immigration and so on. VANCE speech was loved by a ton of people and hated by a ton of other people.
there isn't within the UK why should it exist among EU countries? we don't even agree on Israel.
at the end what should become clear is that the left and the right have fundamentally incompatible visions of how a western country should be run, managed, both in the short and the long term, and beither is willing to commit to unchangeable compromises anymore.
the left isn't because everything went for its side for decades so they arent willing to compromise in general, to accostumed to win every time. the right isn't because for the first time in decades it feels it has a chance to win and change course from the horrific, anti European policies the left pushed upon us.
Good luck with the militarization efforts.
Wars are usually fought with unfortunate conscriptees so your point, as usual, is irrelevant.
Wars are usually fought with unfortunate conscriptees so your point, as usual, is irrelevant.
Also - it's relative to the proximity of existential wars. Europe has done a relatively good job of staying out of internal wars for living memory (up until 2022) so for its people, most wars have been ridiculous boondoggles in the Middle East. Who would go and fight for that?
Meanwhile, those same people who are claiming to be unwilling to fight for their country are foaming at the mouth at the thought of migrants in small boats.
In other words, if Russia made it to Calais, then I suspect the maths would change somewhat.
Also - it's relative to the proximity of existential wars. Europe has done a relatively good job of staying out of internal wars for living memory (up until 2022) so for its people, most wars have been ridiculous boondoggles in the Middle East. Who would go and fight for that?
You’re forgetting Iraq and Afghanistan both of which saw European countries send their troops to.
You’re forgetting Iraq and Afghanistan both of which saw European countries send their troops to.
No that's exactly my point!
Right! I missed the word internal, though the former Yugoslavia does come to mind, not exactly a war but a conflict,
But yeah.
The changes in world politics that need this have only really become clear in the last few days (and yes, you can always say we knew it was coming, but the sheer scale of the USA's hostile intent was not that clear up till now imo), so it's not too late, but a radical shift in Europe needs to take place. I just hope the usual EU kick the can down the road nonsense doesn't del
No-one knows what's coming even now but the risks have been very clear for a long time. Ironic that trump is basically demanding what we should have done because of the long obvious risk thats someone dangerous like trump might be in charge.
Also it clearly makes no sense for Europe to rely on some other remote country which will always put it's own interests well before ours. It's just a hangover from WW2 that obviously has to come to an end.
Starmer the fool has had his plans for European troops in Ukraine rejected by Germany, thank god.
Starmer the fool has had his plans for European troops in Ukraine rejected by Germany, thank god.
Well of course, Germany has been as close to demilitarized as you can get for 40 years and many of their politicians still live in a past where this was fine.
A large war in Europe is becoming increasingly likely, and it would be foolish to think it can be dissuaded merely by diplomacy. We tried that tactic for 25 years, and Russia has kept going to war against neighbors.
It is probably a bit too late for a peacekeeping effort, but it should probably be tried on the basis that failure might lead to ruin.
No-one knows what's coming even now but the risks have been very clear for a long time. Ironic that trump is basically demanding what we should have done because of the long obvious risk thats someone dangerous like trump might be in charge.Also it clearly makes no sense for Europe to rely on some other remote country which will always put it's own interests well before ours. I
It is a an open questing whether the US is an ally. It is many cases it is an opponent. It has even opened the door for territorial disputes where its government speaks like an enemy.
Whether this is due to kleptocrats in the executive branch or misguided nationalism is a debate for the US to settle. However, for its past partners and allies, that debate is irrelevant. They have to live in the world of actions and outcomes.
Starmer the fool has had his plans for European troops in Ukraine rejected by Germany, thank god.
Scholz's position is actually that he does not want to commit himself ahead of an agreement by Ukraine. Then again Scholz may not even be in power next week.
Of course the Germans have been defaulting on their defence obligations for a long time, preferring to spend the money on vote-buying -- or 'welfare', as it is sometimes called, the German state pension being about three times the size of the British one. In recent years it was so bad that Germany kept only two jet fighters operational, to meet the NATO QRA requirement, while they lathered Putin with cash-for-gas and paid people to go on nice holidays.
Poland's Donald Tusk has declined to send troops but is ready to assist in logistics. Since the US under its Halloween-pumpkin president has gone rogue, the Europeans are going to have to do something.
Trump's actions make it really easy and obvious if there's a choice with the UK orienting to the US vs Europe. Europe win this all day, because they are at least reasonable and reliable.
Well, the caveat being that Europe needs to survive in a recognizable form for this to be true.
Needs to be a new model of NATO (ETO?) not something built around the EU, cos that will get nothing done.
Needs to be a new model of NATO (ETO?) not something built around the EU, cos that will get nothing done.
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 that as we speak, Russia is taking the old plans to invade the Baltics out of the drawer and dusting them off, and the question is how long they need to build their capacity for a new war.
