Trump's tariff wars...long post.

[Steve Browning]

Meanwhile, all humanitarian aid to Gaza is stopped so the deal can be renegotiated. 

[TimR]

Brilliant. Zalenskyy meets Charles.

 

Before Trump... 

 

Top trolling gents. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce98v8mnxm3o

 

 

[tegs07]

More evidence emerging that the Trump administration is impacting the living standards of the american poor:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c24110m30ddo

 

Long term who knows but so far much of the policies seem to be making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Edited 19 hours ago by tegs07

[JohnDaBass]

Is it time to stop buying US made basses?

[SteveXFR]

Just buy used ones.

[Geddys nose]

2 hours ago, Russ said:

There's plenty of other places to source sufficient weaponry from. Canada makes armoured vehicles and munitions. South Africa produces vast quantities of weapons, munitions and vehicles. Europe already has excellent homegrown fourth-generation jet fighters (thinking the Typhonn, the Rafale and the Gripen) and has a couple of fifth-gen ones in the pipeline. Britain is a global leader in drone tech, electronic warfare and aircraft avionics. 

 

Like it or not, weapons manufacturing = jobs, economic growth and security. I'm a pacifist, but I'm also a realist. 

But by May ‘25 we would only have taken delivery of our 48 F35’s at £90 million each. I imagine the life of them will be quite long, not something you really want to reorder with a limited defence budget.

[Downunderwonder]

6 hours ago, Burns-bass said:

 

But your point here about the Russian economy in meltdown and a lack of manpower surely illustrate how ludicrous it is to suggest they'll roll through Ukraine and attack Poland...

Give them that chunk of Ukrainian verdant farmland and crack on buying their gas. You really think they won't rebuild their war machine that is currently relying on requisitioned Lada's and donkeys? Russians are natural born megalomaniac followers.

 

Give Ukraine hardware and stop buying Russian stuff altogether. Close borders. The deal will be that they back out of Ukraine. If Purin won't take it someone will put a bullet in Putin and take it on his behalf.

 

Arm up using the frozen Russian funds. That isn't inflationary.

 

Lease the Crimean port back for Russian commerce.

 

Everybody play nice for long enough and Russia can even join the EU. That is the long term fear of both the US think tank and Russian oligarchy. Bugger them.

[prowla]

3 hours ago, Geddys nose said:

But by May ‘25 we would only have taken delivery of our 48 F35’s at £90 million each. I imagine the life of them will be quite long, not something you really want to reorder with a limited defence budget.

It'll be 10+ years before we have anything else.

 

 

https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/team-tempest/

 

 

[chris_b]

 

[edstraker123]

15 hours ago, SteveXFR said:

The Ukraine war could have been stopped much cheaper and at a much lower cost if NATO sent in troops straight away to help defend Ukraine. 

Wouldn't the cost have been WW3 ?

[Burns-bass]

8 hours ago, Downunderwonder said:

Give them that chunk of Ukrainian verdant farmland and crack on buying their gas. You really think they won't rebuild their war machine that is currently relying on requisitioned Lada's and donkeys? Russians are natural born megalomaniac followers.

 

Give Ukraine hardware and stop buying Russian stuff altogether. Close borders. The deal will be that they back out of Ukraine. If Purin won't take it someone will put a bullet in Putin and take it on his behalf.

 

Arm up using the frozen Russian funds. That isn't inflationary.

 

Lease the Crimean port back for Russian commerce.

 

Everybody play nice for long enough and Russia can even join the EU. That is the long term fear of both the US think tank and Russian oligarchy. Bugger them.

Listen to yourself. You really want to put the UK on the road to war with Russia?

 

I’m sure all this stuff sounds great in your  mind. Feel free to grab your gun and crack on, but don’t take the rest of us with you.

 

Russia has always wanted to have a buffer zone around it to protect it from NATO and the western sphere of influence. This has been part of the uneasy peace deals we’ve had for years. 
 

Any peace deal will establish that again with a backstop if they break this.

 

I agree we should re-arm, but stealing Russian funds is utterly mad given how much UK and global cash is managed abroad by our banking sector. You set a precedent like that and we’ll have the mother of all recessions here as half the world realises they can’t trust us with their cash.

 

 

[Burns-bass]

20 minutes ago, edstraker123 said:

Wouldn't the cost have been WW3 ?

Exactly this.

 

Keir Starmer putting troops into Ukraine is a direct provocation and escalatory. (we already have special forces there to be fair, but they’re not in direct conflict, apparently)

[edstraker123]

13 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

Keir Starmer putting troops into Ukraine is a direct provocation and escalatory

Without a commitment from Germany, Spain or Poland or presumably any of the 3 Baltic states who weren't worthy of an invite. I

[Burns-bass]

1 minute ago, edstraker123 said:

Without a commitment from Germany, Spain or Poland or presumably any of the 3 Baltic states who weren't worthy of an invite. I

None of this will happen without American backing. It’s all performative for Trump, of course, but could work in our favour as the US probably likes Starmer acting this way.

[tegs07]

24 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

Listen to yourself. You really want to put the UK on the road to war with Russia?

 

I’m sure all this stuff sounds great in your  mind. Feel free to grab your gun and crack on, but don’t take the rest of us with you.

 

Russia has always wanted to have a buffer zone around it to protect it from NATO and the western sphere of influence. This has been part of the uneasy peace deals we’ve had for years. 
 

Any peace deal will establish that again with a backstop if they break this.

 

I agree we should re-arm, but stealing Russian funds is utterly mad given how much UK and global cash is managed abroad by our banking sector. You set a precedent like that and we’ll have the mother of all recessions here as half the world realises they can’t trust us with their cash.

 

 

IMO giving up territory already seized by Russia including Crimea is inevitable. Giving them up before negotiations though is idiotic. Nobody negotiates like this.

 

A lot of what is going on is symbolic. Zelensky meeting the king in his tracksuit deflects from the GOPs perceived slight of the meeting with Trump. The involvement of all the major European countries publicly offering to be part of any backstop solution just dilutes the Trump Europe scrounging line.

 

Its a lot of theatrics to get a peace deal involving the USA back on the table.

[Burns-bass]

35 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

IMO giving up territory already seized by Russia including Crimea is inevitable. Giving them up before negotiations though is idiotic. Nobody negotiates like this.

 

A lot of what is going on is symbolic. Zelensky meeting the king in his tracksuit deflects from the GOPs perceived slight of the meeting with Trump. The involvement of all the major European countries publicly offering to be part of any backstop solution just dilutes the Trump Europe scrounging line.

 

Its a lot of theatrics to get a peace deal involving the USA back on the table.

 

I think all this is performative, too.

 

My reading is that the deal between Putin and Trump is probably already done and that's going to mean all the current territory gained is going to be claimed as Russian. The idea that Crimea was ever likely to be reclaimed by Ukraine is fanciful. Zelensky can bash the table as much as he likes, but intransigence is exactly why a peace deal hasn't been signed yet. Starmer knows that.

 

I think the Zelensky humiliation was probably a tactic to publicly put him in his place. Trump is trying to stop the conflict appearing like a US v Russia proxy war, which is actually a good thing for future security. 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Burns-bass

[edstraker123]

I think you are right. Everyone knows the US deal is the only way to end the war. This meeting was just a show for Trump to show we'll stump up more cash. But why does he keep up with the escalatory comments about British troops on the ground in Ukraine ? If its a bluff lets hope Putin never calls it.

 

When this is resolved it will be interesting to see how this plays out domestically for Starmer if and when services are cut further to fund defence and when unemployment increases due to the Employers NI increase. This is great distraction from what's currently happening at home.

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by edstraker123

[Burns-bass]

3 minutes ago, edstraker123 said:

I think you are right. Everyone knows the US deal is the only way to end the war. This meeting was just a show for Trump to show we'll stump up more cash. But why does he keep up with the escalatory comments about British troops on the grounfd in Ukraine ? If its a bluff lets hope Putin never calls it.

 

When this is resolved it will be interesting to see how this plays out domestically for Starmer if and when services are cut further to fund defence and when unemployment increases due to the Employers NI increase. This is great distraction from what's currently happening at home.

 

 

 

This is Starmer's moment. The guy is massively egotistical and loves the spotlight. He's also in a great position to be seen as an honest broker between the US and Europe. The problem will be if he's called upon to make a choice between the two.

 

Given Ukraine's attempt to join NATO was given as the main reason for the war, I can't see Putin signing any peace deal that sees European or US troops on the ground in Ukraine. The neutrality of Ukraine will be the basis of a peace.

 

When this is signed (which it will be) Starmer, Trump and the rest of the Europeans will be accused of selling out the Ukranians who will be stuck. As much as we're offering protection, we're not providing a roadmap to becoming part of the EU (a step toward becoming a part of NATO).

[Steve Browning]

I am not a moderator, but making (what could be termed) personal remarks about people, whether they be members or politicians, surely pushes this even more firmly into the political sphere that is banned here. 

 

It's an important discussion so maybe it can take place without any insults?

[tegs07]

16 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

Zelensky can bash the table as much as he likes, but this pig-headedness and ego is exactly why a peace deal hasn't been signed yet. Starmer knows that.

I’m not sure this is an accurate assessment of Zelensky. His country has been invaded with new territory being seized incrementally every day. It’s a war of attrition directed at the civilian population. He needs to keep his people motivated and let them know that he won’t sell them out cheaply for a peace deal that will not last.

 

The peace deal that Trump wants is very short sighted. Sure it meets his short term agenda and ambitions of saving cash and getting payback but the long term consequences will be far reaching for NATO and will green light more Russian hybrid warfare against Europe, embolden and strengthen his enemies and weaken his allies. Trump sees Europe as an economic adversary not a source of geopolitical stability. He is badly misjudging a long term roadmap IMO.

[Burns-bass]

7 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

I am not a moderator, but making (what could be termed) personal remarks about people, whether they be members or politicians, surely pushes this even more firmly into the political sphere that is banned here. 

 

It's an important discussion so maybe it can take place without any insults?

 

Edited.

[Burns-bass]

2 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

I’m not sure this is an accurate assessment of Zelensky. His country has been invaded with new territory being seized incrementally every day. It’s a war of attrition directed at the civilian population. He needs to keep his people motivated and let them know that he won’t sell them out cheaply for a peace deal that will not last.

 

The peace deal that Trump wants is very short sighted. Sure it meets his short term agenda and ambitions of saving cash and getting payback but the long term consequences will be far reaching for NATO and will green light more Russian hybrid warfare against Europe, embolden and strengthen his enemies and weaken his allies. Trump sees Europe as an economic adversary not a source of geopolitical stability. He is badly misjudging a long term roadmap IMO.

 

Zelensky is a strong chap, I get that. The problem is he and his government are mired in corruption claims and have links with some very dodgy characters. He's not universally popular or a Churchillian figure (and even Churchill wasn't universally popular, of course). He may wish to fight on, but we don't really know if that reflects the current views of his country. (This is a point Trump made in very crass terms.)

 

I think we fundamentally disagree about the future. Russia has been portrayed as an expansionist regime that plans to roll across Europe and threaten the UK. If that were the case, then I'd 100% support putting the UK on a war footing. 

 

I simply don't think this is ever going to happen or was ever Putin's plan. I think we're being pushed in a very dangerous direction and that Starmer even threatening to put UK troops into Ukraine massively increases the risk of escalation and all the horrors that brings. 

 

Diplomacy means making deals with the wrong people for the right reasons. 

 

Guess we see what happens. Perhaps I'll meet you in the trenches somewhere over there. (Although at 44 and asthmatic, I'm not sure I'd be much good.)

 

 

[tegs07]

Just now, Burns-bass said:

 

Zelensky is a strong chap, I get that. The problem is he and his government are mired in corruption claims and have links with some very dodgy characters. He's not universally popular or a Churchillian figure (and even Churchill wasn't universally popular, of course). He may wish to fight on, but we don't really know if that reflects the current views of his country. (This is a point Trump made in very crass terms.)

 

I think we fundamentally disagree about the future. Russia has been portrayed as an expansionist regime that plans to roll across Europe and threaten the UK. If that were the case, then I'd 100% support putting the UK on a war footing. 

 

I simply don't think this is ever going to happen or was ever Putin's plan. I think we're being pushed in a very dangerous direction and that Starmer even threatening to put UK troops into Ukraine massively increases the risk of escalation and all the horrors that brings. 

 

Diplomacy means making deals with the wrong people for the right reasons. 

 

Guess we see what happens. Perhaps I'll meet you in the trenches somewhere over there. (Although at 44 and asthmatic, I'm not sure I'd be much good.)

 

 

Where we disagree is you equate what Russia, China, North Korea, Iran etc are up to as C20th century warfare. It isn’t. This is an entirely different form of geopolitical conflict.

 

[tegs07]

America is going down’: China can capitalise on damage caused by Trump, former PLA colonel says - The Guardian https://apple.news/AsIizjpbGSxqgAxCIeaF3LQ

 

another link:

 

https://www.pressreader.com/australia/the-guardian-australia/20250303/281848649352493

Edited 5 hours ago by tegs07

[Leonard Smalls]

1 hour ago, Burns-bass said:

Ukraine's attempt to join NATO was given as the main reason for the war

Not because Putin (mistakenly) thinks that Ukraine has always been part of Russia, or that fascist Ukrainians were targeting Russians living in the Donbas region?