Dunge

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0jg4n776evo Thoughts? I would love to see a real-life mammoth. But is the journey there too unethical?

I understand we’re also the only ones so far to openly claim an interest in doing so.

Unfortunately, I believe it. I don’t know where he’d get the 20k figure from if he didn’t. Even if he didn’t, I recall a lot of countries supporting the USA when it came to shooting down Iranian missiles. Or invading Iraq. Or standing alongside them when they triggered Article 5 after 9/11.

I’m surprised that: A) He apparently didn’t mean the UK* and/or France B) He sought to correct it regardless. *(regardless of the fact Starmer isn’t our head of state but that’s the kind of thing I’d expect to be gotten wrong)

While I doubt Trump’s actions over Ukraine will ultimately bother Americans that much, I reckon the tariffs will hurt him.

He’ll be delighted and use it in his message to Make Britain Great Again.

Sweden has a terrifying array of flat-pack bombs.

Definitely. What I mean is that he respects their power, their military. I doubt he respects their culture or their people.

Fair, I’m not sure either. But if America pulled out completely, Putin would reason that he has more flexibility with approach and timings. Plus we have the spectre of Trump actually dealing with Putin and boosting his economy in the process.

Certainly Putin only respects America, while the Russian people value a strong leader and hard power. I don’t think anyone wants to fight Russia. It’s more concern that we’ll have to if they attack a country we’re duty-bound to defend. I reckon if America agreed to this proposed deal, agreed to the provision of a backstop and went to Russia with it then Russia would ultimately agree. They’d get enough to claim victory and would likely prefer it to continuing the current conflict with Ukraine getting American backing. However, if America don’t agree to it then there’s a choice between a sell-out and Russia continuing at their own pace without American support for Ukraine, in which they’d fancy taking Kyiv by the end of Trump’s presidency if not by the end of the year, with Europe getting a bloody nose in the process. I appreciate you’re saying “then just accept the sell-out”. I guess that would be a choice for Ukraine. At least they’d stand a chance of keeping a country in name, although there’s no guarantee Russia wouldn’t kick off again with America simply walking away and Trump blaming the Ukrainians for some sort of provocation.

I’m fine with it being ended at a negotiating table - particularly, it would mean Ukraine still exists to negotiate. I just think the Americans are being at best naïve, probably negligent and at worst wilfully on the side of the aggressor.

I don’t have kids, but friends do and the thought of that is utterly terrible. But you’re assuming if we leave Ukraine to it then Putin will decide “that’ll do”; not just now but in the future. Is it really a choice between defending Ukraine and living in peace? Or is it a choice between defending Ukraine and eventually defending Germany? Maybe you’re right, but there’s so much uncertainty out there right now and there are a lot of experts saying that it’s not a question of whether we need to stop Putin but simply where.

Putin pulled his soldiers back from Kyiv three years ago “as a show of goodwill” so I’m sure he could find another one.

I think putting the plan into 3 key points: - Strong/Capable Ukraine - European defence support - US Backstop is a good way to go. If nothing else it’s a base to run with and gives Trump scope for negotiation/concession to Russia/demand for minerals beyond that. That’s not to say Trump will accept it but it’s worth a shot. Particularly if you can convince someone like Rubio it’s worth doing.

It’s possible of course, but could end up with a very long southern/eastern border and would take a long time to create. We’re currently looking at 2.5% expenditure by 2027; At that rate there’ll be another American election before we get anywhere near serious. In the meantime, we have a gap to bridge. It’s no surprise to me that Starmer’s at least hesitant before giving up on America.

I think Lionator’s words there are referring to conventional warfare. I mean, nuclear warfare isn’t even really warfare.

In related news, I notice that Starmer has done an outward display of cordiality toward Zelensky this evening. Making a point without making a point.

The West has been at the top of the food chain for decades, so we’ve largely made the world we want as a result. Now, America’s stepping back and we’re rolling into this multi-polar world that China’s so keen on. This is what that world looks like. But hard power has always ruled, it just hasn’t been front and centre because we’ve been living under its benevolent umbrella.

Entirely possible, although there’s a big problem on the horizon of America not just ending support to Ukraine but also boosting the Russian economy with Trumpdeals.

We might be talking crossed purposes here.

Well, Starmer embraced Zelensky as opposed to bending his head over into his own fart so it was already an improvement.

Has anyone else experienced the near infinite loop of: 1. Someone accidentally sends a message to the whole company; 2. Someone replies to all “Please remove me from this mailing list.” 2a. See above 2b. See above … 2n. See above 3. Someone else replies to all “Stop replying to all!” 3a. See above 3b. See above …

A colleague once tried to send me a picture of a rather unpleasant gashed leg but accidentally sent it to another colleague with a similar surname.

We’ll be needing some actual weight before we start throwing it around.

I don’t think that’s on the cards anyway. The only ones who have even mooted that in terms of the current conflict is France, and that met with internal opposition. And that was with potential US backing.