The politics thread.

[gerryinromania]

Trying to get my head round this.
A very rich man, with 34 convictions, gets to become the president of a big country. He then makes clear that he wants Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal to become his. He decides to rename the Gulf of Mexico.
Across the waters, this very rich mans friend decided that he wants the neighboring country to become his, this man is also very rich, but wants more.
Unfortunately the country didn't want to become the other mans property, so the other man decides to invade and take it by force, problem is, that this country decides to fight back in order to stay as they are, ruled from within and not by a strong neighbor.This country has the support of almost all of Europe
Now we have these two big countries, deciding that they will decide the future of the poorer country, without any of their members allowed to have a say.All the allies of this country are told to keep their noses out, it's not their problem, they are not worth listening to,Europe is unimportant..
Seems a bit strange to me.
We now have the convicted president, who has decided that he wants Greenland et.al saying that the little man that decided to fight for his countries future is a Dictator. Excuse me, what are those rulers of the two big countries deemed to be then, are they not dictators?
Yes, I hear you say, this poorer country is corrupt, guess it is. Are not the two big countries and their rulers corrupt, Clean hands and healthy minds?
Would be nice if someone could say which countries do not have corruption
It's rather fortunate that the ruler with his 34 convictions and his rich powerful friend,with no enemies ( they keep dying) are super clean without any corruption I want, I'll take ideas

 

[lyb]

An invasion is binary. You either support the war invader taking land from the invaded or you don’t.

Everything else is just obfuscation.

 

[Ricardo]

Welcome to the world of "Realpolitik"

 

[Sonyc]

Trying to get my head round this.
A very rich man, with 34 convictions, gets to become the president of a big country. He then makes clear that he wants Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal to become his. He decides to rename the Gulf of Mexico.
Across the waters, this very rich mans friend decided that he wants the neighboring country to become his, this man is also very rich, but wants more.
Unfortunately the country didn't want to become the other mans property, so the other man decides to invade and take it by force, problem is, that this country decides to fight back in order to stay as they are, ruled from within and not by a strong neighbor.This country has the support of almost all of Europe
Now we have these two big countries, deciding that they will decide the future of the poorer country, without any of their members allowed to have a say.All the allies of this country are told to keep their noses out, it's not their problem, they are not worth listening to,Europe is unimportant..
Seems a bit strange to me.
We now have the convicted president, who has decided that he wants Greenland et.al saying that the little man that decided to fight for his countries future is a Dictator. Excuse me, what are those rulers of the two big countries deemed to be then, are they not dictators?
Yes, I hear you say, this poorer country is corrupt, guess it is. Are not the two big countries and their rulers corrupt, Clean hands and healthy minds?
Would be nice if someone could say which countries do not have corruption
It's rather fortunate that the ruler with his 34 convictions and his rich powerful friend,with no enemies ( they keep dying) are super clean without any corruption I want, I'll take ideas

You wonder how the wider world will remember Trump, Putin and Zelenskyy? What will be their lasting legacies?

 

[Sonyc]

We need to put our own house in order and stop continually cutting the defence budget because we would rather spend it on nice things for ourselves. Freedom and independence come at a price and its a lesson that we continually have to relearn. Europe cannot rely on the USA to defend us anymore and those countries eg Austria, Ireland etc who have been getting a free ride for decades will have to start to pull their weight. Its time for Starmer and Macron to step up to the plate.

From the iPaper yesterday.....

"A former Nato commander believes plans due to be put forward by Sir Keir Starmer to send fewer than 30,000 European peacekeeping troops to Ukraine aren’t credible and that Britain must prepare for war with Russia.

General Sir Richard Shirreff said Russia must be defeated before any peacekeeping mission, but warned allied powers deploying peacekeeping soldiers should be ready for “full-scale state on state warfare” if Moscow’s forces attack them.

He added the Prime Minister will be “laughed out of court” by Donald Trump next week when he travels to Washington unless the Prime Minister signals defence spending will rise to at least 3 per cent.

The ex-Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe of Nato called on European powers to arm Kyiv to defeat Vladimir Putin on the battlefield before any peacekeeping force is deployed.

Conscription of around 30,000 Britons a year must also be considered to boost the size of the British Army to 100,000, he believes, although as a professional soldier he said he “hated” the idea of conscription, with training to prepare Armed Forces reservists in the event of the “worst case”.

Where are the air defence missiles defending London, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast, other major UK cities?” Sir Richard told The i Paper.

“Where is the mobilising of the defence industries, the mobilising of the national economy to fight a war?

“This is big stuff. This is really serious. Munich, 1938 was a betrayal of Czechoslovakia, but at least it forced Chamberlain to kick off re-armaments.

“Munich 2025 is set to be a betrayal of Ukraine. But it should also be firing a starting gun to prepare Britain and Nato for war with Russia, because that ultimately is the only way we are going to maintain peace.”

If Trump pulled US troops out of Baltic Nato states it could embolden Putin to launch further attacks and risk a Third World War, he added.

The PM is set to unveil the blueprint, led by the UK and France, for a “reassurance force” of 30,000 soldiers to Trump next week.

But Sir Richard said while plans to use intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, drones and satellites to monitor any border with Russia were a good idea, “a lot more” soldiers were needed.

“The only cast iron security guarantee for Ukraine is Nato membership. The next guarantee is really capable troops, a military force with a clear intent that if the Russians do anything to break a cease fire, they’ll get thumped,” he said.

“I think that you’re going to be really pushed to do anything with 30,000.

“You’ve got to say, right, this is the nature of the task. This is what is required to do the task. Rather than saying the most we can provide is 30,000 and therefore, let’s find ways to make it stretch. So I don’t think it sounds credible, frankly.”

Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, has said sole responsibility for any peacekeeping operations would fall on the Europeans and Canada.

Trump was creating the conditions for Putin to win the war, with Nato in danger of being “holed below the waterline” by the US President, said Sir Richard, now a leading geopolitical keynote speaker with the Champions Speakers Agency.

It comes as Defence Secretary John Healey said a ceasefire in Ukraine must not be something that is broken again by Russia re-invading Ukraine.

Sir Richard added: “All the talk about any ceasefire force, whether you call it implementation or reassurance or whatever, is totally academic, unless the Russians are forced to accept it.

“And so the first step is to say, how do we force the Russians to accept it? We defeat the Russians in Ukraine, or we help the Ukrainians to defeat the Russians in Ukraine.

“The only hope for long term peace and security in Europe is if Russia is given a bloody nose in Ukraine and recognises it will never achieve its aims – in other words, defeating Russia in Ukraine.”

Long-range missiles with permission to strike deep into Russia, huge caches of ammunition, air defence surveillance, tanks, armored infantry fighting vehicles and self propelled artillery, together with drones and satellite surveillance were all needed by Ukraine, Sir Richard said.

Speaking on The Jeremy Vine Show, Labour MP Paulette Hamilton said that the UK needs to start “a serious discussion around conscription”.

“Because young people are not engaged but they’re going to have to because our borders are being threatened and you cannot continue to bury your head in the sand.”

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: “This is purely speculation. As the Prime Minister said after Monday’s Paris summit, we are still at the early stages of the process, but Britain will take a leading role in supporting a lasting peace in Ukraine that safeguards its sovereignty and will deter Putin from further aggression in the future.”

 

[morty]

Conscription, can you imagine? What a ridiculous idea. Labour are clueless.

And any idea of going to war with Russia is absolute nonsense.The fact that the current defence secretary has never served in the military and is a career politician speaks volumes.

 

[Sonyc]

Conscription, can you imagine? What a ridiculous idea. Labour are clueless.

And any idea of going to war with Russia is absolute nonsense.The fact that the current defence secretary has never served in the military and is a career politician speaks volumes.

She stated that a discussion needed to start. Another way of looking at it is that you could say it's trying to look ahead, to prepare the country. The armed forces have been shrunk over 30 years (also mentioned by on Question Time has night by Nick Carter) through cut after cut. Ben Wallace also was honest. The bulk of this article also quotes Richard Shirreff. I think I tend to trust what both Carter and he are saying (about the threat) and for that matter, Wallace.

The world has got more dangerous since Trump's statements this last week (where the ace negotiator seems to opened up the whole of his poker hand...again a point made a few times on QT last night).

I would hope any government, left or right or whatever needs to be prepared and take this all seriously and I would imagine there will be a cross party consensus on this.

PS. I wonder whether with the America First policy if US bases here will be affected and personnel withdrawn? I read too that Lakenheath has been subject to Russian-linked drone activity (and another base in Suffolk...can't recall the name).

 

[morty]

Nuclear nations do not go to war with each other.

Armed forces cuts are nothing new, guys got redundancy letters during Gulf war 1. Your forces have to be appropriate for the size of the perceived current and future threat.

Also we are hating on the guy who would rather have peace?

 

[Sonyc]

Nuclear nations do not go to war with each other.

Armed forces cuts are nothing new, guys got redundancy letters during Gulf war 1. Your forces have to be appropriate for the size of the perceived current and future threat.

Also we are hating on the guy who would rather have peace?

No, not at all. Hope he is successful to be honest. It is interesting to watch on. Not sure about the tactics as it will weaken the US reputation (in my amateur view from the outside...and who knows?). I'm of the view that Trump's reaction doesn't help the UK. Then, why should he... as he appears disinterested in the position of European countries? He is probably right that Europe needs to step up (less conferences and more action). The Starmer visit might tell us more next week.

The article was in response to Ricardo (and my own previous post) about the armed forces and the need to build them up. I.am more worried about Russia, though I would think their resources are extremely stretched. I worry because of Putin's repeated nuclear threats. Of course there is MAD.
I have the same view about other services and think taxation should be increased. Not a popular view I realise but I don't think trying to shave budgets at every opportunity is good for the nation. And surely this is a time for bolstering defence.

 

[morty]

The rhetoric may well indeed be preparing us for tax rises. Also a little about trying to strengthen the cease fire bargaining position.

I disagree re armed forces numbers, there is scope for small increases but not much more. Our military doctrine fundamentally changed when the USSR collapsed, we changed from manpower heavy and mechanised land war to a more expeditionary model. Plus we rarely fight alone, it will usually be as part of a coalition.

We don't have the resources for a war in Europe, but neither do Russia.

 

[Fenway Frank]

Starmer will probably call up pensioners

 

[Sonyc]

The rhetoric may well indeed be preparing us for tax rises. Also a little about trying to strengthen the cease fire bargaining position.

I disagree re armed forces numbers, there is scope for small increases but not much more. Our military doctrine fundamentally changed when the USSR, we changed from manpower heavy and mechanised land war to a more expeditionary model. Plus we rarely fight alone, it will usually be as part of a coalition.

We don't have the resources for a war in Europe, but neither do Russia.

You'll know far more about the subject than me. I simply read (and listen to podcasts). We are apparently 'technology' poor too (again reported last night) and would struggle if the cables from Norway were attacked (and so on...40% of our food comes in by sea.

 

[lyb]

We don't have the resources for a war in Europe, but neither do Russia.

Careful there, you're getting dangeorously close to admitting that a peacekeeping force likely wouldn't need to fight at all; just be there.

On another note, I bet Labour is kicking itself for laying into the Conservatives so hard when they brought up the idea of national service.

 

[morty]

You'll know far more about the subject than me. I simply read (and listen to podcasts). We are apparently 'technology' poor too (again reported last night) and would struggle if the cables from Norway were attacked (and so on...40% of our food comes in by sea.

Huge mistakes have been made, and continue to be made considering food and energy security, mostly through green agenda idiocy. Not sure where the technology poor idea comes from, our new doctrine involved a smaller, better equipped force, and that is largely true apart from the navy lagging a bit.

 

[morty]

Careful there, you're getting dangeorously close to admitting that a peacekeeping force likely wouldn't need to fight at all; just be there.

On another note, I bet Labour is kicking itself for laying into the Conservatives so hard when they brought up the idea of national service.

No. I'm really not.

You don't tend to do peacekeeping with tank battalions. And peacekeeping forces aren't there to fight either.

 

[lyb]

No. I'm really not.

You don't tend to do peacekeeping with tank battalions. And peacekeeping forces aren't there to fight either.

Peacekeeping is, however, normally the job of trained solders.And they do need weapons. That's the whole deterrence bit.

 

[Scoop]

I thought the main peacekeeping tools were sanctions primarily, then negotiating, mediating etc. and NATO only uses force in self defense?

 

[lyb]

I thought the main peacekeeping tools were sanctions primarily, then negotiating, mediating etc. and NATO only uses force in self defense?

The clue is in the 'keeping' bit of 'peacekeeping'. Once you have agreed a peace deal, you then have a peacekeeping force to protect the peace. In this case a force to deter Putin from invading again.

Sanctions on Russia haven't created peace, but they have weakened Russia's economy, which has impaired its progress in its illegal invasion of Ukraine.

 

[morty]

I thought the main peacekeeping tools were sanctions primarily, then negotiating, mediating etc. and NATO only uses force in self defense?

The basis of peacekeeping is mostly observing and recording. Not fighting.

 

[Scoop]

The clue is in the 'keeping' bit of 'peacekeeping'. Once you have agreed a peace deal, you then have a peacekeeping force to protect the peace. In this case a force to deter Putin from invading again.

So to be clear, are you saying NATO should use force to defend it's position (Ukraine territory in this case) or that it should take the fight to Russia and advance into Russian territory?
(Obv the use of weapons and threats applies in both cases).

If it's the later then that's where I think we disagree, I don't think that's NATOs stance.