Trump's tariff wars...long post.

[prowla]

4 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

After Ukraine then Macedonia. At what point do we get concerned?

Georgia was ignored first….

Not forgetting Crimea (Ukraine phase 1).

 

It's all part of the Make Russia Great Again master plan.

[Burns-bass]

12 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

After Ukraine then Macedonia. At what point do we get concerned?

Georgia was ignored first….

 

The question for me isn't what I find morally wrong, it's at what point do you commit UK troops to directly engage Russian ones?

 

That's the question. Personally, it would be if a NATO member is directly attacked. 

 

We can stamp our feet and talk about how awful Putin is, but we're complicit in looking the other way at conflicts across the world. 

 

[SteveXFR]

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. 

[Burns-bass]

Just now, 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. 

 

If you think that would have stopped escalation you're absolutely mad. 

 

That would have caused WW3 – and it still could if we send our troops there.

 

 

[tegs07]

I honestly don’t know the answer to these questions. On the one hand ideological justification could be limited by the EU not expanding into former soviet countries and Russian spheres of influence. On the other hand I read articles years back predicting Russian aggression as the west weaned itself off oil and gas. The oligarchs in Putin’s inner circle dominate these industries and their wealth (and power) are inextricably linked to them. Reduced consumption leads to reduced prices which leads to reduced power which leads to internal changes of regime.

Conflict leads to higher price which leads to more wealth and stability for the current regime.

Edited yesterday at 15:03 by tegs07

[tegs07]

12 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

 

The question for me isn't what I find morally wrong, it's at what point do you commit UK troops to directly engage Russian ones?

 

That's the question. Personally, it would be if a NATO member is directly attacked. 

 

We can stamp our feet and talk about how awful Putin is, but we're complicit in looking the other way at conflicts across the world. 

 

IMO we don’t unless a NATO country is attacked and the only way to ensure that doesn’t happen is to have a bigger stick than Putin has.

[Burns-bass]

Just now, tegs07 said:

IMO we don’t unless a NATO country is attacked and the only way to ensure that doesn’t happen is to have a bigger stick than Putin has.

 

The problem is, we have no stick – the Amercians do.

 

As distasteful as it is, agreeing a peace isn't about losing face, it's reflecting the reality that we (the UK and Europe) don't want war, couldn't fight or or afford one. 

 

 

 

 

[tegs07]

5 minutes ago, Burns-bass said:

 

The problem is, we have no stick – the Amercians do.

 

As distasteful as it is, agreeing a peace isn't about losing face, it's reflecting the reality that we (the UK and Europe) don't want war, couldn't fight or or afford one. 

 

 

 

 

Peace needs to be agreed and the USA are crucial to achieve it. Giving up major concessions before negotiations have taken place is not a good tactic though. Ukraine doesn’t have no cards. Russia’s economy is in a parlous state and they are on the brink of requiring conscription when they run out of North Korean cannon fodder. These are not great odds.

Trump is looking for short term gains only has a team around him that have constructed a narrative where Ukraine are just shameful beggars and it’s just a European issue. This is a flawed and myopic position.

 

Edited yesterday at 15:15 by tegs07

[Burns-bass]

1 minute ago, tegs07 said:

Peace needs to be agreed and the USA are crucial to achieve it. Giving up major concessions before negotiations have taken place is not a good tactic though. Ukraine doesn’t have no cards. Russia’s economy is in a parlous state and they are on the brink of requiring conscription when they run out of North Korean cannon fodder. These are not great odds.

 

 

Absolutely agree. 

 

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...?

 

One of the biggest issues for the US is how the conflict has pushed Russia into much closer relationships with China. In the future, this could be hugely dangerous to us all. 

[tegs07]

2 hours ago, Burns-bass said:

 

Absolutely agree. 

 

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...?

 

One of the biggest issues for the US is how the conflict has pushed Russia into much closer relationships with China. In the future, this could be hugely dangerous to us all. 

Ukraine sidelined these plans. I honestly think that Putin went into Ukraine expecting Kiev to fall in days and Ukrainians to welcome the victory. After Georgia and Crimea I think he thought that the world would moan a bit, slap on some sanctions and then it would be business as usual picking off Macedonia and some other soft targets.

 

Europe should have learned from Trump MK1 and got their act together. Do I think it’s over with a peace deal? No the western dominated order is going to be continually challenged and conflict will continue if preparations are not put into place. 

 

IMO capitulation to Russia will embolden China to expand into the South China seas and Trump is doing an excellent job of legitimising China as a credible guarantor of strength and alternative currency to the $. I think he and the team he has around him are totally lacking a broad geopolitical perspective and are looking at things from a very narrow angle. They don’t even appear to grasp that empowering Russia increases the global importance of China, North Korea and Iran at the same time.

His team are simultaneously rupturing NATO, isolating allies, spreading disinformation and interfering in European politics and creating the conditions for global recession.

 

I am not a fan. If the unthinkable happened and the USA under Trump left NATO and kept voting against allies in UN councils they might end up confronting China’s ambitions in the South China seas on their own. China has no aims I know of in Europe but does want a European market for its goods.

 

Edit 1: Marching through Poland. Not sure if this is ever the plan. Keeping the cost of oil and gas high would create enough inflation and internal division to allow nationalist, isolationist and in many cases Russian friendly politicians to do the job without firing a shot.

 

Edit 2: Europe can have peace through strength and unity. This is the opposite of what Trump, Vance and Musk are doing. @peteb has suggested that Europe could eventually look to China as a legitimate source of stability (economic and military). Since Trump started his presidency there are growing signs this is already happening. It comes with future risk but so does dealing with the USA under Trump who is outright hostile and duplicitous towards the EU.

 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 17:20 by tegs07

[Buddster]

Just to go back to this weeks press conferences (not trying to sideline the current conversation), and something I'd not noticed. 

With Macron, trump said the US had given $300 billion to Ukraine. The actual figure is $119b. Macron pulled him up on that lie, and that Europe had given more than the US, and weren't expected to see it back. 

 

2 days later, with Stamer, trump said exactly the same lie. $300b. Stamer didn't correct him, but said Europe had gifted the money. 

 

Also, this is not actual money they have given Ukraine, it's military arms, bought from US arms manufacturers, or older stock that would have been destroyed. 

 

As you were... 

 

 

 

[tegs07]

Trump just keeps talking and telling the same lie. It works. He knows how the media works. Create enough drama and the details get lost and forgotten. How many journalists ask him whether his hatred of Zelensky is due to impeachment no1. Hell so much dust has been kicked up since that episode it’s forgotten. Same with the Starlink/Verizon scandal that isn’t getting traction.

[Russ]

3 hours ago, tauzero said:

I can only assume that everyone heaping praise on Starmer DGAF about the foreign aid that he's slashing for defence rather than employing wealth taxes and/or taxing the excessive profits of energy companies. Presumably he's gone this way to attract more Reform voters.

I don't like it either, but where else was he going to get it from? Schools? The NHS? The police? Social care? State pensions? All of which are far more pressing hot-button issues to people in the UK. 

 

People don't understand the value of foreign aid - it helps prevent wars starting in the first place, and spreads "soft power". But, in a situation where a geopolitical situation requires a bit more than just soft power (as it increasingly seems to be right now) it's the only place I can think of where they can redirect funds from and not piss off the British public. They can always raise foreign aid again once this particular situation has been navigated and the economy gets into a better state of growth. 

[tegs07]

3 minutes ago, Russ said:

I don't like it either, but where else was he going to get it from? Schools? The NHS? The police? Social care? State pensions? All of which are far more pressing hot-button issues to people in the UK. 

 

People don't understand the value of foreign aid - it helps prevent wars starting in the first place, and spreads "soft power". But, in a situation where a geopolitical situation requires a bit more than just soft power (as it increasingly seems to be right now) it's the only place I can think of where they can redirect funds from and not piss off the British public. They can always raise foreign aid again once this particular situation has been navigated and the economy gets into a better state of growth. 

Agreed. It also needed to be signed off in a hurry to offer some sign of acceptance to Trump’s demands. I doubt a wealth tax or taxing energy companies would be a quick or easy task.

[Russ]

3 hours ago, Geddys nose said:

We have to be careful with the US military hardware too, they need constant updates or they just turn into scrap metal (Re Afghanistan)
Rory Stewart says all the intel goes directly to the US from the planes and we buy it back off them, then we have the security issues with sharing intel with the US and the gaping holes not having their Intel to fill in the blanks that we don’t know about,  add to that satellite coverage that Europe uses for  it’s military needs. 
 

Won’t be an easy process weaning our self’s off the US and getting our stuff in the skys.

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. 

[tauzero]

1 hour ago, Burns-bass said:

The question for me isn't what I find morally wrong, it's at what point do you commit UK troops to directly engage Russian ones?

 

Three years ago.

[tauzero]

27 minutes ago, Russ said:

I don't like it either, but where else was he going to get it from? Schools? The NHS? The police? Social care? State pensions? All of which are far more pressing hot-button issues to people in the UK. 

 

Like I said, wealth taxes and/or taxing the excessive profits of energy companies. Oh, and abandoning HS2.

[tauzero]

Trump is actually obliged by treaty to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity (as is the UK), and Russia is obliged by the same treaty to respect that territorial integrity. This arose from when Ukraine returned nuclear weapons from its own territory to Russia.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-and-security-assurances-glance

[JoeEvans]

Worth bearing in mind that Russia is struggling and failing to invade Ukraine while just fighting the Ukrainians. They are worlds away from being able to roll on across Eastern Europe. The problem is not whether Russia can be defeated, it's whether it can be done gently enough that Putin doesn't lose the plot and do something really stupid.

[SteveXFR]

The worst case would be Trump agreeing to sell US military hardware to Russia. If Putin asked, I doubt Trump would say no.

[Buddster]

29 minutes ago, tauzero said:

Trump is actually obliged by treaty to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity (as is the UK), and Russia is obliged by the same treaty to respect that territorial integrity. This arose from when Ukraine returned nuclear weapons from its own territory to Russia.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ukraine-nuclear-weapons-and-security-assurances-glance

So another agreement Putin has broken, and one trump doesn't know /choosing to ignore. 

[Buddster]

5 minutes ago, SteveXFR said:

The worst case would be Trump agreeing to sell US military hardware to Russia. If Putin asked, I doubt Trump would say no.

Or exchange for rare earth minerals 

[tegs07]

Just now, Buddster said:

So another agreement Putin has broken, and one trump doesn't know /choosing to ignore. 

Ah but he hasn’t broken it. For Putin this agreement was made with a Russian centric government. The new one is full of nazi’s and pose a threat to Russia.

[Dad3353]

53 minutes ago, tauzero said:

Three years ago.

 

2014, to prevent the illegal annexing of Crimea. 

[SteveXFR]

5 minutes ago, Buddster said:

Or exchange for rare earth minerals 

 

Would that be rare earth minerals which are used in electric cars built by companies like (for example) Tesla? Or rockets made by companies like Space X? Obviously there's absolutely no link between these companies and Trump. None at all. Look over there at those poor people, don't look at this.