General News

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

It's not hierarchical it's capitalism.  Big Fish wants his deal and doesn't give a shite.  

 

I'm not saying it's right, it's the way of the world today.

 

PS, no offence taken.

Yeah, I think capitalism goes hand in hand with hierarchy, but you're right in that it and realpolitik is the way of the world.

 

It doesn't take a great mind to figure it leads nowhere good, though.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Trouble is he practically gave Trump a rim job the other day so to now row in the opposite direction will undo all that. 

I do hope Starmer is playing some kind of long game, I do think he has the brain for it, but we'll find out, I guess.

[Free Falling Foxes]

I dare say these sort of altercations go on often during international meetings between presidents, prime ministers, diplomats and so on - but  usually away from the glare of the world's media.

President Zelenskyy, was set up by those two characters, under the full gaze of the world.

What I saw was the equivalent of two school bullies picking on a small kid in the playground.

Absolutely reprehensible.

Edited 1 March by Free Falling Foxes

[blabyboy]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I do hope Starmer is playing some kind of long game, I do think he has the brain for it, but we'll find out, I guess.

It's more the men in grey suits in the background... Now they will earn their coin.

[Bilo]

As alluded to on here, we're seeing the end of the USA's status as the foremost superpower under Trump. He's pitching in with Russia: a faded, autocratic former empire with limited geopolitical reach in spite of its extreme aggression towards weaker regional powers, and even those have had limited or mixed success. They are yesterday's power. They produce and add nothing to the global economy. Our consumer products are not shipped from Russia. We'll be driving MGs and BYDs in years to come, not Ladas and Moskvitches.

 

A smart POTUS would see China's rise as inevitable, but frame that as an opportunity as much as a threat. China, unlike Russia, is not aggressive to its neighbours and is primarily interested in projecting its global reach through economics. They want money, not expansion or to rebuild an old empire. So sign mutually beneficial trade deals, work with them on a solution to the issue of North Korea, isolate Russia and make it irrelevant and weak. 

 

The US picking the wrong horse will enable China to quietly strengthen its position, cement its position as a global economic leader and tie America's fate to a fading power that will be the basket case it was in the early 20th century. 

Edited 1 March by Bilo

[Dunge]

America is more than just Trump and Vance. Even the Republican Party, however corrupted they may be right now, is more than that. Meanwhile, our military - including probably our nuclear deterrent - is intrinsically linked with America. America remains the greatest military power on Earth; even if things were to kick off in any serious way, we’d likely need to buy their weapons.

 

It really isn’t as simple as Starmer flipping the bird to Trump and saying “screw you then”.

[nnfox]

2 minutes ago, Bilo said:

As alluded to on here, we're seeing the end of the USA's status as the foremost superpower under Trump. He's pitching in with Russia: a faded, autocratic former empire with limited geopolitical reach in spite of its extreme aggression towards weaker regional powers, and even those have had limited or mixed success. They are yesterday's power. They produce and add nothing to the global economy. Our consumer products are not shipped from Russia. We'll be driving MGs and BYDs in years to come, not Ladas and Moskvitches.

 

A smart POTUS would see China's rise as inevitable, but frame that as an opportunity as much as a threat. China, unlike Russia, is not aggressive to its neighbours and is primarily interested in projecting its global reach through economics. They want money, not expansion or to rebuild an old empire. So sign mutually beneficial trade deals, work with them on a solution to the issue of North Korea, isolate Russia and make it irrelevant and weak. 

I think China is a tough nut to crack, even for the USA but this POTUS can keep China at arms length without too much trouble.  Russia, on the other hand, could be an economic partner of the USA with oil, gas and rare-earth stuff and scope to persuade a more capitalist approach from within.  I have visions (and I'm sure President Trump does too) of a Trump Tower in Moscow.  For Russia to thrive economically, the US will need to play a major part.  Trump the deal maker, sees opportunity here.  He knows that Russia aren't going to invade anyone else, after the struggles experienced in Ukraine.

 

Trumps plan was to sign a deal that enabled US companies to mine Ukraine, his peace-keeping strategy would be American miners, not troops.  Putin wouldn't "dare" cause problems for US citizens and once up and running, there would then be deals to strike with Putin for Ukranian mines.

 

What Trump doesn't want, is a United States of Europe.  A population twice the size of America, great infrastructure, well educated, economically astute people.  THAT poses more of a threat to Trump than Russia hence why he is trying to cause disharmony.  I think a slightly fractured Europe suits Trump better than a united NATO.

[Bilo]

1 minute ago, Dunge said:

America is more than just Trump and Vance. Even the Republican Party, however corrupted they may be right now, is more than that. Meanwhile, our military - including probably our nuclear deterrent - is intrinsically linked with America. America remains the greatest military power on Earth; even if things were to kick off in any serious way, we’d likely need to buy their weapons.

 

It really isn’t as simple as Starmer flipping the bird to Trump and saying “screw you then”.

Starmer's role is now critical. He's one of the very few world leaders who has a very strong relationship with both the EU and the US. He's clearly a Europhile and well-respected by European leaders in return, and has already adeptly exploited Trump's Anglophilia just this week. He could be a very useful, and therefore powerful, go-between for the EU, NATO and US if he plays it right. 

[Bilo]

3 minutes ago, nnfox said:

I think China is a tough nut to crack, even for the USA but this POTUS can keep China at arms length without too much trouble.  Russia, on the other hand, could be an economic partner of the USA with oil, gas and rare-earth stuff and scope to persuade a more capitalist approach from within.  I have visions (and I'm sure President Trump does too) of a Trump Tower in Moscow.  For Russia to thrive economically, the US will need to play a major part.  Trump the deal maker, sees opportunity here.  He knows that Russia aren't going to invade anyone else, after the struggles experienced in Ukraine.

 

Trumps plan was to sign a deal that enabled US companies to mine Ukraine, his peace-keeping strategy would be American miners, not troops.  Putin wouldn't "dare" cause problems for US citizens and once up and running, there would then be deals to strike with Putin for Ukranian mines.

 

What Trump doesn't want, is a United States of Europe.  A population twice the size of America, great infrastructure, well educated, economically astute people.  THAT poses more of a threat to Trump than Russia hence why he is trying to cause disharmony.  I think a slightly fractured Europe suits Trump better than a united NATO.

Russia is screwed long-term. 

 

It's nowhere near as powerful militarily as Putin thinks it is, (as evidenced by a multitude of military and foreign policy failures in Georgia, Ukraine, Chechnya and Syria,) produces next to no products that the global markets wants, has an ageing population with a falling birthrate and has fallen drastically behind all of its competitors in terms of skills, education and technology. The raw materials can be sourced elsewhere from more dependable partners that are more stable and have a better skilled labour force with a more diverse economy.

 

In our lifetime, it will be a backwater compared to most of the other BRICS countries; let alone China, the EU and the US. Brazil and India will be far more relevant powers in twenty years when Putin and Trump are long dead.

 

Trump aligning with it is a huge misstep. It'll achieve nothing beyond giving China a four-year headstart in terms of framing itself as a more reliable and forward-thinking partner for the EU and developing world. 

 

It will also tip the UK towards a closer relationship with the EU if he goes full Putinista, and increase the long-term likelihood of the UK rejoining the EU due to the latter's greater reliability, proximity and advancements, with that American nightmare of a United States of Europe becoming closer as a result. With the EU and China on the rise and the US tied to a Russia that is, frankly, dying, it would be an enormous long-term geopolitical strategic error that Trump's successors would have to deal with. 

[Dunge]

If Trump doesn’t want a United States of Europe, he’s going exactly the wrong way about it.

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Dunge said:

If Trump doesn’t want a United States of Europe, he’s going exactly the wrong way about it.

To say nothing of Canada, Australia and a fair few other nations who will also be watching.

[Bilo]

12 minutes ago, Dunge said:

If Trump doesn’t want a United States of Europe, he’s going exactly the wrong way about it.

He obviously thinks that offering flattery and favourable trade deals with the UK will drive a wedge between us and the EU, which is critical for the US as we are among the three biggest economies in Europe. Not to mention Trump and the populist right in both countries wanting to preserve the primacy of the Anglosphere. 

 

But we trade more with the EU, are more politically aligned towards the likes of France and Germany than the US under Trump and it is, after all, right on our doorstep with higher living standards and far better education and training.

 

If the US aligns towards a dying Russia for more than a couple of years, its fate will be inextricably tied to Russia and the EU will be our better long-term bet. Not to mention the fact that there is already a growing desire for greater Anglo-European integration. If Labour get a couple of terms and Vance wins the presidency in 2028, expect the boosters to be put on rejoining. Why do you think Russia wants Farage as PM?

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, Lionator said:

Russia is not a communist country. It’s one of the most appalling examples of an ultra capitalist country where a rich 0.00001% own everything while the plebs suffer. 

Well in that case the USSR wasn't a communist country either.

[Bilo]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I do hope Starmer is playing some kind of long game, I do think he has the brain for it, but we'll find out, I guess.

I think 'the long game' pretty much sums Starmer up. He played it to perfection over Partygate and his whole strategy to win the GE from taking over as Labour leader was based on patiently and pragmatically building a case. If you want quick wins, he isn't your man. If you're prepared to wait for results however...

[Bilo]

2 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Well in that case the USSR wasn't a communist country either.

To be fair, modern Russia is pretty blatantly extreme right. Probably fascist.

 

Authoritarian, extreme structural inequality, aggressively nationalistic and expansionist, highly reactionary in terms of social policy and avowedly Russian supremacist.

[jgtuk]

8 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Well in that case the USSR wasn't a communist country either.

Correct 

[Bilo]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

To say nothing of Canada, Australia and a fair few other nations who will also be watching.

An ANZAC and EU relationship with Britain either closely aligned or fully reintegrated would be a nightmare for the US. And that's before you consider this alliance having a relationship with China.

[bovril]

4 minutes ago, Bilo said:

To be fair, modern Russia is pretty blatantly extreme right. Probably fascist.

 

Authoritarian, extreme structural inequality, aggressively nationalistic and expansionist, highly reactionary in terms of social policy and avowedly Russian supremacist.

Many of those things have been part of Russian culture for centuries, including during the USSR

[st albans fox]

13 hours ago, Dunge said:

I’m not sure. It would’ve been interesting to see what happened if and when Russia’s economic problems properly caught up with them. Doesn’t look like that’s on the cards any more, of course. In fact it looks like America could try to actively boost them to extricate them from China.

I think it’s generally about this as much as it’s about money for the Americans 

 

if the Europeans step up to support Ukraine fully with more money and more arms and allow them to attack Russian territory without any restrictions then I think we get closer to Russia launching at attack on a NATO country and then we see if article 5 is invoked - I doubt that US forces would become involved.  Then we see NATO as pretty much impotent. I doubt trump wants to get to that point - he wants a share of the minerals rather than the Europeans getting in on that or the Russians.  
 

I guess some will say that this was inevitable given realpolitik - not so much how it’s played out, especially the public nature of yesterday.  

 

what intrigues me is how Zelenskyy got to the Oval Office unless he had accepted everything and was prepared to sign the deal.  Someone has mislead here - did the administration drag him in with lies about guarantees in order to publicly humiliate him or did Z tell Rubio that he accepted the deal as it stood and hoped to do some manoeuvring once out of the public gaze with the hope that trump would give a little and sign because he just wanted the minerals?  

[Bilo]

9 minutes ago, bovril said:

Many of those things have been part of Russian culture for centuries, including during the USSR

Some nations and populations lean right or lean left just through cultural norms.

 

Soviet Communism was, in reality, a combination of aggressive imperialism, Russian (or at least Slavic) supremacy and economic socialism. It was every bit as racist and imperialist as Nazi Germany when you look at its history towards Eastern and Central Europe, Ukraine, the Baltic states, Caucusus and Central Europe. 

Edited 1 March by Bilo

[Sly]

5 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Trump hugely exaggerated how much they've been feeding them.

That’s call Trumpflation. Every time he talks, the numbers get bigger! 

[bovril]

4 minutes ago, Bilo said:

Some nations and populations lean right or lean left just through cultural norms.

 

Soviet Communism was, in reality, a combination of aggressive imperialism, Russian supremacy and economic socialism. It was every bit as racist and imperialist as Nazi Germany when you look at its history towards Eastern and Central Europe, Ukraine, the Baltic states, Caucusus and Central Europe. 

Certainly. I think in Britain we underestimate cultural and historic factors when analyzing the current trajectories of major countries. Brexit and MAGA being examples of that along with Putin's Russia.

[Salisbury Fox]

1 hour ago, Bilo said:

 China, unlike Russia, is not aggressive to its neighbours

I’m not sure I agree with you there, as the island building and aggressive maritime manoeuvres indicates otherwise.

[Bilo]

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

Certainly. I think in Britain we underestimate cultural and historic factors when analyzing the current trajectories of major countries. Brexit and MAGA being examples of that along with Putin's Russia.

We do.

 

Cultural factors, such as distrust of authority and desire for individual liberty, are huge reasons why the UK never went fully authoritarian in the 1930s while the likes of Germany, Italy and Spain did, despite facing many of the same challenges and issues.

 

Of course, Brexit came largely from the same tradition mixed in with traditional British xenophobia and exceptionalism. 

 

MAGA is an interesting one. It's certainly come from American exceptionalism and economic classical liberalism, but I do feel as though poor education and susceptibly to disinformation have played their part.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I’m not sure I agree with you there, as the island building and aggressive maritime manoeuvres indicates otherwise.

Doesn’t it also have open territorial disputes with both Tibet and India ?