[Politics] Starmer - absolute legend

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

He must have an excellent team of diplomatic advisors behind him. It’s like “Yes Minister” brought up to date.

 

[Knocky's Nose]

"If you look on Facebook, you'll find all the information you need"

And if you look on MSM you'll find all the information you're supposed to see....

I stand by what I said, and if you don't agree with it - they hey, cool, I respect your opinion too. We all have our own opinions.

 

[Knocky's Nose]

What a dick

I think the same about some of your posts, but I don't flex my fingers and go full warrior.

 

[aolstudios]

There is no way would I want my children to be signed up to fight the Russians . All very well to have principals but whilst on face of it would be wrong happy if Ukraine has to give up some land if it would bring peace and avoid world war 3

No.
It.
Wouldn't.
ffs.
Like giving up Czechoslovakia & Austria, pre Poland 1939 'avoided ww2'

 

[Flounce]

There is no way would I want my children to be signed up to fight the Russians . All very well to have principals but whilst on face of it would be wrong happy if Ukraine has to give up some land if it would bring peace and avoid world war 3

If everyone had that attitude and Putin carries on for a few more years I believe you’d be delaying WW3 not avoiding it. NEVER give in to bullies is my long held belief.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

There is no way would I want my children to be signed up to fight the Russians . All very well to have principals but whilst on face of it would be wrong happy if Ukraine has to give up some land if it would bring peace and avoid world war 3

If we were in the same position as Ukraine, what part of the UK would you be happy for our allies to surrender? Would it concern you that this peace was based on an agreement with a notorious tyrant and liar who has already been open about wider territorial ambitions and who has killed thousands of your countrymen, and other people's children, in an unprovoked invasion?

 

[DJ NOBO]

Starmer has had his best week in power imo.
It makes no sense to be prickly with the USA, and he’s done a good job over there.
And cutting foreign aid in the interests of defending the country is not only (regretful but) sensible, but shows he’s reading the room a bit better.
Given the state and recent track record of the Conservative party, what better alternative is there than to hope for the best with Starmer?
Reform? Even if you like what they’re about they are an unknown quantity and haven’t faced intense scrutiny yet.

 

[SouthSaxon]

I’m enjoying how all the people on here trying to advocate for appeasement are adopting two arguments consistently:

1. “Look how swole the Russians are, we can’t possibly take them on”
2. “I don’t want my kids marching off to WWIII to get killed”

The whole point of this is that Europe needs to get more swole precisely to stop further war.

If Europe stays weak and Trump walks away, Putin will be coming. At what point should we stop appeasing because it’s no longer “far away”? The Baltics? Poland? Germany?

Nobody wants their kids on a battlefield.

That’s why investing more in defence now, and try to get a grip on the diplomacy is an absolute necessity. Every European leader (except Orban and Fico), every strategist and every military expert is saying this.

Some people seem to want to hand their lunch money over to the playground bully in the hopes they’ll forget about them tomorrow.

That’s a different perspective on it, sure. I can respect their right to adopt that position. But I prefer facts to their “opinions”.

Anyway, I’m off to sign my lad up for the first wave. That’ll teach him for not tidying up his bedroom.

 

[Peteinblack]

Starmer has had his best week in power imo.
It makes no sense to be prickly with the USA, and he’s done a good job over there.
And cutting foreign aid in the interests of defending the country is not only (regretful but) sensible, but shows he’s reading the room a bit better.
Given the state and recent track record of the Conservative party, what better alternative is there than to hope for the best with Starmer?
Reform? Even if you like what they’re about they are an unknown quantity and haven’t faced intense scrutiny yet.

Apart from curbing immigration, I doubt if many Reform supporters know what their other policies are - as far as I can work out, they are somewhat to the Right of Thatcher economically, so the 'left-behind' who tend to worship Farage as their saviour would continue to suffer the most.

Anyway, don't want to derail the thread....

 

[jcdenton08]

These are a good recovery from a very dodgy start. Appearing statesmanlike now

 

[Pavilionaire]

Starmer is a proper politician and statesman, and is in a different league to the last 5 Tories idiots we've had to put up with. Just thank f*** he is in charge now, I shudder to think where we'd be with Truss or Boris.

 

[Rdodge30]

If Europe stays weak and Trump walks away, Putin will be coming.

I don’t see it, Zelenskyy told Trump that Putin would be crossing the sea to America next and I don’t see that either.

Regardless of Trump or Zelenskyy this has been going on for decades before them. The break up of the Soviet Union…NATO (mainly the U.S.) pushing pushing against Russia.

This is all very much local politics to Putin.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I hope we never need to see this but I disagree.
If Ukraine can hold out for 3 years then a combined Europe force would smash the Russian forces.

I have no doubt that we could give their tanks a kicking. Unfortunately they have rather a lot of very large bombs with some very nasty stuff in them

 

[Eeyore]

I don’t see it, Zelenskyy told Trump that Putin would be crossing the sea to America next and I don’t see that either.

Regardless of Trump or Zelenskyy this has been going on for decades before them. The break up of the Soviet Union…NATO (mainly the U.S.) pushing pushing against Russia.

This is all very much local politics to Putin.

He didn't say that Putin would be crossing the sea to America. He said they would feel it. He was referring to Russian influence. Trump's response was to say he shouldn't tell America how they would feel, it came straight from a pub argument after chucking out time.

As for complete victory for Ukraine, I don't believe this can be done without more boots on the ground. Even with heavy US and European weaponry support the Russians have only been pegged back. That's the problem when your invader lives next door. Putin would happily destroy his own country rather than concede defeat. He is a proud, morally bankrupt, oligarchal thug. A bit like Trump. No wonder they get on.

So the future of this war for Ukraine does worry me. I've not changed my mind in three years in it. I cannot see how Ukraine can achieve a total victory without full on military support from elsewhere. That means personnel too.

It's sad, immoral and unjust that they have become a pawn in the wider political games of the heavyweights. The US was behind much of the pre-war happenings in the West of the country there, and Russia in the East. And that is why they have no wish to include Ukraine in the talks. Now they have decided to reveal their hand and go for the thing they wanted all along, resources. The US administration doesn't give a flying flamingo about the Ukranians, we saw that in the Oval Office. Trump says he wants peace. What he really wants is resources.

It seems to me that since the WWII, and especially the break up of the Soviet Union, the US has been allowed to wander the world like a newly discovered territory under the guise of a great protector. And Western nations, given their reliance and submissiveness, have stood by watching feeling protected. But what we see now is the US questioning the usefulness of Europe under it's new real estate portfolio march. And Europe is hopelessly under prepared.

All this became clear as early as his inauguration speech. Watch it again. Actually don't, it's nauseous.

Why does US see China as the main threat when there is no military conflict ? Because China is everywhere. Africa, South America, Asia. That's why they are a threat. Buying up all sorts of resources and influence. So Trump is correct when he sees them as the real enemy. But they are not Ukraine's and not Europe's because we are not on an imperial march.

So this is the real reason why we are here. The US administration no longer sees us as useful. The Ukrainians are, and have been pawns, for sometime. We will only become useful again once we buckle down and support their imperial mission. It's all so blatant.

So where does this leave Ukraine ? I don't know what will happen. All I know is both America and Russia should just leave them alone. And any internal issues should be free from outside interests and subject to some kind of independent arbitration and democratic will. As it always should have been. But that won't happen. Russia started this war, but the Americans had long stoked it. And it's the Ukrainians that suffer now those big bullies have revealed their true hand. Shame on them.

When Starmer cosied up to Trump it made me feel sick. But I knew why he was doing it. He had to play his own political game. But I bet he had his own bucket with him in the flight home. I wouldn't have enjoyed that. A true statesman he is, I agree with folk on that. It's a tough job when you are dealing with some of the people he has to.

 

[SouthSaxon]

I don’t see it, Zelenskyy told Trump that Putin would be crossing the sea to America next and I don’t see that either.

He wasn’t being that literal. He tried to point out that America would be impacted if Putin is allowed to continue the aggression. Starmer in his speech yesterday acknowledged this has already happened to Britain when he talked about energy prices.

Regardless of Trump or Zelenskyy this has been going on for decades before them. The break up of the Soviet Union…NATO (mainly the U.S.) pushing pushing against Russia.

This is all very much local politics to Putin.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here…because the US and Russia have been antagonising each other for decades things will just continue on?

 

[Rdodge30]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here…because the US and Russia have been antagonising each other for decades things will just continue on?

I’m saying Putin is not marching through Europe to get to the UK, NATO have been expanding eastward despite agreement that they wouldn’t for a long time. 15 years ago practically the whole of Europe agreed with the U.S. that Georgia and Ukraine should be brought into NATO

To Putin this is all local politics

 

[SouthSaxon]

I’m saying Putin is not marching through Europe to get to the UK

Neither am I. What’s more important is what Putin has been saying. He has spoken openly about imperial ambitions and compared himself to Peter the Great, who expanded Russia’s empire into Eastern Europe.

If that’s allowed to happen, it impacts the UK, regardless of whether people prefer to pretend otherwise.

NATO have been expanding eastward despite agreement that they wouldn’t for a long time. 15 years ago practically the whole of Europe agreed with the U.S. that Georgia and Ukraine should be brought into NATO

Georgia and Ukraine are sovereign nations, are they not? This means they have the right to determine their own destiny.

Both nations are seeking membership to deter more of Putin’s imperialism, which both had already been subject to previously.

Ukraine did not apply for membership until 2022, after Russia had invaded on the pretext of a lie that NATO was building up infrastructure there, and after they had claimed the four oblasts under the Russian constitution.

In 2000 - a year after Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined - Putin himself said he’d consider joining NATO. He didn’t seem so bothered about it back then.

To Putin this is all local politics

I strongly doubt that but, even if it were, that doesn’t make it a good idea for Britain to bury its head in the sand given the significant impact it’s already having on us economically.

Remember all the Tories telling us over and over that the cost of living crisis was caused by the war and not Brexit?

Can’t have it both ways I’m afraid. And again, for the hard of thinking that might be following along, this isn’t a binary choice between total avoidance and total war.

 

[Blue3]

I do think Sir Kier appears to be a very good candidate as the European international lead when Macron steps down only problem being we are not in the EU

 

[abc]

Whist I think its far too early to call Starmer 'legend', it would have been unimaginable someone starting a thread with that title only a few weeks ago. It is early days but he has shown true leadership at a time when the world desperately needs it and I am sure most people in the UK are seeing him in a very different light. Its like he's grown a foot taller as well as developing balls.

I said a few weeks ago in a post that I thought Ukraine might become his Thatcher/Falklands moment and I think that is already coming true. The world has suddenly changed and his perception at home has changed with it and deservedly so.

So now is the chance to also show true leadership at home by scrapping all the plans that are widely accepted as being anti growth and start again - I don't care whether or not he sacks Reeves but the country needs some economically astute, business and growth friendly policies. Blaming such U turns on the changing world outlook and the subsequent need to abandon the promises on tax etc made during the election campaign would not now be unreasonable, but most of all I think he has this unique opportunity to be seen as a leader at home by doing so and can win the support of the people and even the press.

If he can do this and continues to develop as a world leader in the way that he has thus far, he will have my utmost respect (not that he or anyone else would give a monkey's!) and he will earn the title 'Legend'

 

[SouthSaxon]

Whist I think its far too early to call Starmer 'legend', it would have been unimaginable someone starting a thread with that title only a few weeks ago. It is early days but he has shown true leadership at a time when the world desperately needs it and I am sure most people in the UK are seeing him in a very different light. Its like he's grown a foot taller as well as developing balls.

I said a few weeks ago in a post that I thought Ukraine might become his Thatcher/Falklands moment and I think that is already coming true. The world has suddenly changed and his perception at home has changed with it and deservedly so.

So now is the chance to also show true leadership at home by scrapping all the plans that are widely accepted as being anti growth and start again - I don't care whether or not he sacks Reeves but the country needs some economically astute, business and growth friendly policies. Blaming such U turns on the changing world outlook and the subsequent need to abandon the promises on tax etc made during the election campaign would not now be unreasonable, but most of all I think he has this unique opportunity to be seen as a leader at home by doing so and can win the support of the people and even the press.

If he can do this and continues to develop as a world leader in the way that he has thus far, he will have my utmost respect (not that he or anyone else would give a monkey's!) and he will earn the title 'Legend'

It’s one thing to take on Russia, but the Treasury?! They’ll nuke everyone without a second thought.