Misdee

Try to tell customers in a grocery store in most parts of the USA what a great job the Democrats did with the economy and you will be left in no doubt why Trump won. The statistics are irrelevant to ordinary people who feel much poorer and even more insecure. The Democrats didn't steer the US economy out of COVID. Not did they ever really get the US economy out of the financial crash of 2007/8. That's why they lost so badly both times. And regarding future global economic strategy, Trump and his acolytes have a very definite plan that they are already putting into practise. They are going to collaborate with their main competitors and adversaries, China and Russia, at the exclusion of the rest of the world. Between themselves they will dominate world trade whilst other nations get poorer and weaker as a result. And regarding the stock market, Trump wants it to crash. That's because it will force the Fed to drastically lower interest rates overnight. Above all, Trump represents the interests of capital, and big money wants low interest rates. The Federal Reserve is one of the last bastions of independence in America, so Trump will do whatever is necessary to force their hand.

Trump has won two resounding victories. The percentages count for nothing if you don't get elected. The Democrats know how the American electoral system works. It's all about getting your candidate over the line. Harris didn't win a single swing state. Trump is now the most powerful American President since Roosevelt. He's played the American public brilliantly. He can do what he wants, and he's already doing exactly that.

I think I see what you mean, Dad. Yes, the world is full of very bitter, intractable conflicts with no apparent satisfactory or peaceful resolution. But when has the world ever been much different in that respect? As General Carl von Clausewitz famously said, war is a continuation of politics by other means. I always think about that scene in 2001 : A Space Odyssey when the ape first realises a piece of bone can be used a weapon to smash up a rival ape and give him an advantage. Conflict will never end because human beings are genetically programmed to be competitive. Being combative is key to our survival mechanism. Nature uses our aggression to help perpetuate the human species.

It might be ridiculous to you, Pete, but its not ridiculous to a lot of people in Russia. That's what matters in this instance And besides, as I pointed out, Ukrainian nationalists, with the direct collusion and encouragement of their government, have actively sought to keep the memory of the SS Galicia Division alive as an issue of national pride in order to antagonise the Russians. It's not solely the Russians who keep referring to the past. The Ukrainians have played their part too.

You are quite right Pete, but I'm highlighting what's particularly relevant to Russia's current conflict with Ukraine. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it is.

I'm just pointing out why the Russians describe the Ukrainians as Nazis on a regular basis and feel justified in doing so. I'm sorry if it doesn't suit your preferred narrative but those are the facts.

The thing is, it's easy to blame Trump, MAGA et al, but they haven't created any of this. America was always like this. This lot have just given a large (probably the larger) proportion of the American people a voice and a focus for their grievances. The litany of questionable things this Trump administration are doing are, by and large, being welcomed by most ordinary Americans. A lot of people are loving it. This is democracy at work, working at dismantling the world's greatest democracy. It's always a big ask to save people from themselves. If people don't like what's happening in the USA, blame the Democrat Party, in its current state arguably the worst political organisation in the history of political organisations. It is they who have handed Trump a romping victory not once but twice. There's a tried and tested maxim in political science that opponents don't win elections, governments lose them. That's what has happened in this instance, spectacularly.

Not really. 20 million Russians were killed by the Nazis in WW2 and they've never forgotten the role some Ukrainians played in aiding and abetting them. In the collective Russian psyche the treachery of their near- neighbours is very real and still relevant. Much of the long-standing Ukrainian community in the UK are here as a result of the 14th Division of the Waffen SS being given safe haven in Britain after the war. That's particularly controversial because that unit, made up entirely of Ukrainians and a few Poles, was responsible for some of the worst atrocities of the war. Stalin wanted them back so he could execute them. The British shipped them over here from a POW camp in Rimany to protect them. Not surprisingly, when the shocking extent of the Ukrainians exploits on the Easter Front became apparent, the British government wanted to gloss over the whole affair. The 14th (aka Galicia) SS Division is still celebrated by some Ukrainians in Britain, and in Ukraine they have become a symbol of Ukrainian nationalism and their mideeds lionized. Ukrainians see this as an act of defiance and provocation to the Russians. Hence Putin's various statements about de-Nazification.

The point is that Nixon was lambasted for Operation Linebacker (unrestricted bombing of the North) just like Trump is being slated for playing hardball with Ukraine, but history has vindicated his approach as the catalyst to peace in the region. What if the Trump administrations controversial approach to the Ukraine brings peace? Similarly, received wisdom about Ronald Reagan during his presidency was was that he was an naive and incompetent fool completely unsuited and unqualified for such an important job. How could a mediocre B movie actor be in charge of the most powerful country in the world? And yet now he is widely acknowledged as one of Americas greatest ever leaders and the one who enabled the collapse of the Soviet Union. Trump could easily become subject of a similar revision, just for different reasons. Just look at this tread on Basschat, 56 pages on how stupid and what a nutter Trump is, but still his star is ascending. I can't stand him either, but there's a certain point at which you have to acknowledge his strengths, and there are many. He's a wicked but very capable man and for the foreseeable future he's going to have things all his own way. That's the way of the world, I'm afraid. If Russia annexes all or part of Ukraine, America can live with that, and Europe will have no choice but to like it or lump it. As I have mentioned previously on Basschat to much uproar, historically the relationship between Russia and Ukraine is a complex one. From a Russian perspective there's a very strong case for saying that the Ukraine is part of Russia. Kiev is Russia's ancient capital, and Russia is a superpower with imperial ambitions. They want it back and one way or another they are likely to get it. That's the harsh reality. Despite all the protestations of outrage, what Trump is doing has tremendous popular support from the American public. This is just the beginning. He doesn't really want to annexe Canada, but Greenland could happen because it makes strategic sense for the USA, and Greenland would benefit from it, too. Don't forget, they are currently part of Denmark. How much sense does that make?

I don't disagree with most of what you say Pete, but failure is traditionally the Russian way of waging war. Time after time they suffer ignominious defeat but use their huge manpower and resources to grind out eventual victory. You could point to them giving up in Afghanistan, but that was more to do with changing domestic politics within the USSR rather than military defeat by the Mujahedeen.

Yes, but it's already changed forever.

As I pointed out a while ago on another thread, much to other people's chagrin, once Russia had committed itself to a boots-on-the-ground conventional war in the Ukraine there was only ever going to be one outcome. It's just a question of when and how Russia achieved it's aims, and how costly the attrition is upon it's military. Russia were never going to tolerate Ukraine becoming part of NATO any more than the USA would accept a Russian military presence in Canada or Mexico. For all the eccentricity of the Trump administration, their approach has been productive. They aren't prepared to throw good money after bad in pursuit of a lost cause. For all their evangelical proselytizing about protecting freedom, in private other countries know that too.Including Britain. They're probably a bit relieved, although they could never publicly admit it. Let me put it another way, is Russia annexing territory in Ukraine really that much worse than North Vietnam taking over South Vietnam as victors in 1975? It's not a direct parallel, but it was always going to happen after America withdrew following the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. Nixon and the USA were pariahs at the time for ordering unrestricted bombing of the North to pressurize them into agreeing terms with the USA, but history has vindicated his approach. He succeeded in bringing American involvement to an end when it had previously seemed an intractable problem. I cannot help but think that Trump might be similarly exonerated in his radical approach to the war in Ukraine.

Indeed, how the world has changed. The skinheads and heavy metal fans are now teachers and social workers.

I think Glastonbury has always been more about the event than the actual music on the bill. Just so long as there's no one controversial. Wouldn't want anyone to get upset. I remember the days when Glastonbury was a fringe festival that Guardian-reading teachers and social workers went to because they were likely to be bullied if they went to Reading. They could smoke rollups and watch Van Morrison surrounded by like-minded people, safe from packs of marauding skinheads and defecating heavy metal fans. And nowadays it's even safer, thank goodness.

There in lies the paradox; they are isolationists who want to rule the world. At the beginning of the Twentieth Century the USA had on overarching foreign policy objective, that was to dismantle the British Empire. They succeeded, and what has happened subsequently is largely a result of that aforementioned paradox. The business of America is business, and they want the rest of the world to be aligned in such a way that it is the most suitable market for their goods and services. The rest is window dressing. Tyranny is perfectly acceptable providing it's profitable.