O/T:- Trump Presidency 2.0 [hic sunt dracones]

[drillerpie]

Yes I described it as a *European* army rather than EU deliberately. I would see it involving the major Western European countries and anyone else in the vicinity who wished to be part of it. Hungary probably not.

Those questions you rightly bring up are practicalities that would hopefully be ironed out in the discussions and agreements that would establish the framework. I cant say Ive thought about it any further than that, but it seems daft that countries that have many common interests, objectives, and adversaries are duplicating resources to the extent they are.

Ok fair enough but unless I'm missing something that would mean EU + UK and Ukraine effectively. Good luck selling that to the electorate! (I was / am a remainer, as you know, and even I don't see the benefit of it.)

Not sure what you mean by duplicating resources.

[Bohinen]

Good luck selling that to the electorate!

Indeed. Pensioners can't afford to heat their homes and we're debating who should be in a European army.

'President Zelenskyy is a hero, who has stood up to Putin?s aggression, and led his country?s defence against their barbaric and illegal invasion over the last three years', said Priti Patel, yesterday.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...er-ukraine-war

It's this kind of nonsense that is driving former Labour voters further into the arms of Farage. I know Patel said it, but I don't see this as different to what Starmer has said. As Nige points out, it wasn't very wise of Zelensky(y) to visit the POTUS dressed in Action Man fatigues.

[Jampie]

Farage was seen visiting the Russian embassy during the brexit campaign and lied about it. Anyone driven into his arms is a fool, sorry.

Complaining about Zelensky's clothing choices (for which there is plenty of explanation readily available) when his opponent is an indicted war criminal is just completely insane.

[Jampie]

Regarding security guarantees to Ukraine:

These need to be concrete. As in, if Russia invades again/further, we will declare war on Russia. They would also need to involve troops (in significant numbers) being rotated through Ukraine. At any given time I would guess at least nine brigades would need to be stationed there, and several squadrons of air support. This is going to cost $$$$ and if war breaks out / Putin calls our bluff, an absolute tonne more troops will need to be sent and the ensuing war will be bloodier than anything the west has experienced since the 1970's.

However, if we stand firm, that war will result in Russia's unambiguous and a total defeat on the field. Which carries its own risks. If Putin completely loses his marbles, he might prefer going nuclear to accepting defeat. Especially given the likely danger to his own life. Historically, dictators who lose wars tend not to survive long afterwards.

To maintain the deterrent force, you need at least Poland+Germany+France+UK. Other nations that could help significantly are Turkey, Italy and Spain. Other European nations could provide significant levels of assistance and support. Especially those who are technologically advanced. However, every nation that shares a land border with Russia will need to maintain their own deterrent force and their own defence in depth. Because Russia can be relied upon to exploit any weakness ongoing.

The problem is that all of this will be vastly more difficult without at least a little bit of US support. You can't maintain F-35's in the long term without US support (as just one example). Nobody seriously considered that in the past, but with Trump acting consistently as though he were Putin's puppet, it needs to be considered now.

And that doesn't even begin to tally up the risks in the rest of the world presented by a USA that refuses to stand up for its supposed principles and is willing to side with dictators who invade their neighbours for whatever reason. The korean war could kick off again at any moment, for example. SK would probably "win" these days, but the loss of life on both sides would be nearly unbelievable to present day people. And there's no way it wouldn't result in a global recession either.

Iran's been cooler-headed for a while, but that's in no small part because they are effectively deterred from taking direct action. Sure, Israel could smack them down if they get out of line. But Israel might not see interventions as worth it if they, for example, seize the eastern half of Iraq and Kuwait. Who cares? You will, when the price of oil triples and we have another depression. Putin will love that too. High oil prices are about the only thing that could save him right now, other than Trump handing him victory.

I hate this entire scenario. Every bit of it. All of it is increased risk of catastrophic wars. This is a huge reason I didn't want Trump to win.

[i961pie]

Regarding security guarantees to Ukraine:

These need to be concrete. As in, if Russia invades again/further, we will declare war on Russia. They would also need to involve troops (in significant numbers) being rotated through Ukraine. At any given time I would guess at least nine brigades would need to be stationed there, and several squadrons of air support. This is going to cost $$$$ and if war breaks out / Putin calls our bluff, an absolute tonne more troops will need to be sent and the ensuing war will be bloodier than anything the west has experienced since the 1970's.

However, if we stand firm, that war will result in Russia's unambiguous and a total defeat on the field. Which carries its own risks. If Putin completely loses his marbles, he might prefer going nuclear to accepting defeat. Especially given the likely danger to his own life. Historically, dictators who lose wars tend not to survive long afterwards.

To maintain the deterrent force, you need at least Poland+Germany+France+UK. Other nations that could help significantly are Turkey, Italy and Spain. Other European nations could provide significant levels of assistance and support. Especially those who are technologically advanced. However, every nation that shares a land border with Russia will need to maintain their own deterrent force and their own defence in depth. Because Russia can be relied upon to exploit any weakness ongoing.

The problem is that all of this will be vastly more difficult without at least a little bit of US support. You can't maintain F-35's in the long term without US support (as just one example). Nobody seriously considered that in the past, but with Trump acting consistently as though he were Putin's puppet, it needs to be considered now.

And that doesn't even begin to tally up the risks in the rest of the world presented by a USA that refuses to stand up for its supposed principles and is willing to side with dictators who invade their neighbours for whatever reason. The korean war could kick off again at any moment, for example. SK would probably "win" these days, but the loss of life on both sides would be nearly unbelievable to present day people. And there's no way it wouldn't result in a global recession either.

Iran's been cooler-headed for a while, but that's in no small part because they are effectively deterred from taking direct action. Sure, Israel could smack them down if they get out of line. But Israel might not see interventions as worth it if they, for example, seize the eastern half of Iraq and Kuwait. Who cares? You will, when the price of oil triples and we have another depression. Putin will love that too. High oil prices are about the only thing that could save him right now, other than Trump handing him victory.

I hate this entire scenario. Every bit of it. All of it is increased risk of catastrophic wars. This is a huge reason I didn't want Trump to win.

Half of America and most of the world didn't want him to win but most of Russia did.

[BigFatPie]

Indeed. Pensioners can't afford to heat their homes and we're debating who should be in a European army.

'President Zelenskyy is a hero, who has stood up to Putin?s aggression, and led his country?s defence against their barbaric and illegal invasion over the last three years', said Priti Patel, yesterday.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...er-ukraine-war

It's this kind of nonsense that is driving former Labour voters further into the arms of Farage. I know Patel said it, but I don't see this as different to what Starmer has said. As Nige points out, it wasn't very wise of Zelensky(y) to visit the POTUS dressed in Action Man fatigues.

Why is she wrong? I have noticed the extreme elements of both left and right do seem united in their love of both Trump and Putin, and a disdain for Ukraine, without ever wanting to explain why.

The question to Zelenskyy about how he was dressed was asked by Marjorie Taylor Greene?s boyfriend which is a fair indication of how pathetic it was.

[BigFatPie]

Ok fair enough but unless I'm missing something that would mean EU + UK and Ukraine effectively. Good luck selling that to the electorate! (I was / am a remainer, as you know, and even I don't see the benefit of it.)

Not sure what you mean by duplicating resources.

Yes support for a European army is unsurprisingly lower in the UK than pretty much anywhere in Europe, but we are talking about whether we think it?s a good idea rather than the possibility of it happening or people agreeing to it.

Duplication of resources is just my way of describing the countries of Europe each having to buy their own set of planes, tanks and boats and not benefiting from potential economies of scale rather than spreading their hardware more efficiently.

[Elite_Pie]

Duplication of resources is just my way of describing the countries of Europe each having to buy their own set of planes, tanks and boats and not benefiting from potential economies of scale rather than spreading their hardware more efficiently.

That's why I think it's a good idea in principle, but I accept it's not easy to implement. Every country must spend billions on defence, but how often are the planes, tanks, boats and soldiers throughout Europe in active service? I would appreciate it if someone is clever enough to give me some sort of figure, but I would guess it's pretty low in percentage terms.

[SmiffyPie]

Every country must spend billions on defence, but how often are the planes, tanks, boats and soldiers throughout Europe in active service?

You don't need them until you need them and then you haven't got them (really resisting posting Tommy (The Kipling version not The Who)).

[Elite_Pie]

You don't need them until you need them and then you haven't got them (really resisting posting Tommy (The Kipling version not The Who)).

That was the point.

If you haven't got them but need them you can borrow from (or lend to) a mate.