Salisbury Fox

It’s inevitable that an agreement of some sort will happen, but we need it to not lead to further conflict down the line which giving Russia everything it demands would do in my opinion.

Personally I would say that the best outcome from a Ukrainian perspective would be see the battle lines frozen as they are now. The only way to achieve this is to keep Ukraine in the fight for as long as they want to be. This is what I think last night’s deal does.

I think that view oversimplifies the situation. while I agree it may not be realistic for Ukraine to regain land already lost, what’s being proposed goes much further than that. It would require Ukraine to hand over territory it currently controls, much of which forms a critical defensive barrier against further Russian advances. This article explains the military implications in more detail: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6yd4d5zj6o. I feel on a more broader basis, rewarding territorial aggression undermines the credibility of any future security guarantees. If borders become negotiable under military pressure, then those guarantees become inherently unreliable. There are also strong reasons to be sceptical about Russian intentions after any agreement, given its previous violations of the Budapest memorandum and the Minsk accords. It feels unfair to suggest European leaders are prolonging the conflict, I would suggest that they’re trying to deter a precedent where borders in Europe can be changed by force, which would have far wider consequences than Ukraine alone.

You’re right, how dare Ukraine think it has the right to defend itself.

Perhaps you would feel differently if you were anywhere near the South China Sea. China hasn’t had any reason to use their military extensively as it’s easier to use Russia as a proxy and watch the US become ever more isolationist. I don’t see heeding warnings of our security institutions as swallowing propaganda either btw.

I haven’t said they don’t. Whilst I do hope that the US will come to their senses next time around, I would prefer a closer relationship with Europe than simply replacing them wholesale with a relationship with China. You seem to be prepared to ignore the risks that our security services are clearly highlighting just because of the economic convenience in doing so.

You won’t find me disagreeing with you there.

Well that’s certainly a leap of faith and I am not convinced that their ambition is limited to being equals. Their military build up, economic leverage and political influence campaigns appear to go beyond have a seat.

That’s totally fair and I’m not questioning anyone’s positive experiences of working with Chinese people. My point is more about the actions of the Chinese state.

The concern isn’t that China will invade or attack us directly, the issue is that China’s leverage comes through economic coercion, strategic dependence and control over key technologies and supply chains. The fear therefore is not a militaristic one, but one that sees them reshape rules and norms that limit our autonomy through a different means than the US uses. There’s a reason why our security services are becoming more vocal about the threats posed and only a fool would ignore this. It essentially requires a very cautious approach rather than jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Isn’t it a case of being less aware of China’s coercive practices than the American’s? China’s activities in the South China Sea should represent a more overt warning, but when you consider the political and strategic infrastructure concessions from belt and road financing it appears to me that they pose a significant risk. The spying and influence campaign they are also conducting is of an industrial scale too. Whilst I share your views about the current US administration, at least with them there is hope of political change, the same can’t be said for China.

I would put that down to the incompetence of the Home Office.

I suspect that with the growing adoption of AI, this notion will be turned on its head.

Here’s the UK, French and German (the E3) counter proposal apparently: https://en.hvylya.net/news/80-e3-nations-propose-counter-plan-to-trump-s-ukraine-peace-deal-reuters-reports

I would also add that the deal as it stands would likely lead to a greater risk of nuclear proliferation as countries see that nuclear weapons are the only way to stop another country invading. I also feel it would make war in Europe far more likely. Hopefully there will be significant changes

If that’s what you want to call the military I suppose

Even for those whose work is transient in nature?

To be fair, if raising income tax wasn’t being considered then they could have unequivocally ruled it out much earlier.

I’m sure there are people who hide bigotry behind a thin veneer of respectability and it should be rightly called out. I don’t however see how a point about the economics of high immigration can be construed as such. Feel free to browse through my posting history if you doubt my intentions. I have been consistently making the point about the economics of high migration, illegal and legal, that I feel is even more pertinent now given the lack of growth and increasing demand.

Sigh, that’s not what I said.

Effort and gumption is great and I agree we could certainly benefit from more of that in our work force. However, it doesn’t automatically make someone an economic asset, particularly when you balance those with that drive against those that don’t and those that participate in organised criminal enterprises.

I believe that you are underestimating how many would apply. Every embassy would be overwhelmed.

I may be wrong but I’m sure I read that the Nobel committee sits in January and so it was unlikely he would even have a chance this year. If true, he will be hoping to get it next year.

I have seen this posted numerous times on here about the Dublin Convention and not just by you and so not trying having a go at you. The evidence shows that it didn’t really stack up when we were in the EU and I would suggest that it certainly wouldn’t now if we had remained.

Of course racists are still going to be racist if digital ID is introduced, this won’t stop that, but if they have no justification to ask someone for their ID then they can be dealt with by existing legislation. They would also need to have downloaded the employer verification app that the Home Office would have oversight of to check someone’s status and so theoretically this could provide proof that someone is asking for ID when they shouldn’t be.