[Politics] Starmer - absolute legend

[Pavilionaire]

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.

This is a brilliant post, and I think you've really got the heart of what's changed in American foreign policy under Trump because - for him - it's all about resources and assets. Proof of this is everywhere, from his retweeting of the AI Trump Gaza video endorsing his view that Gaza should be developed into a Riviera, Canada and its vast natural resources being absorbed into the USA as 51st state, the mineral wealth of Greenland.

One of the things that worries me is whether Starmer and Macron really get this. US protection will come at a price for both the protected country and - as we are seeing now - all non-US NATO countries.

And if Trump views foreign policy in terms of resources and assets, rather than the preservation of rightful sovereignty, then he will not object when other countries like Russia and China do what he has done.

What would be interesting is what Trump does if China decides to take back Outer Manchuria, because it doesn't make sense to give up a peace accord with Europe unless you're signed up with someone else, like Russia.

Starmer may be even more of a statesman than we realise if he sees beyond the Ukraine - Russia conflict and is already pre-empting the US leaving NATO. Vance has already said he doesn't care about Ukraine, Musk tweeted over the weekend he wants the US to leave NATO AND the UN, so the direction of travel is clear.

 

[Eeyore]

This is a brilliant post, and I think you've really got the heart of what's changed in American foreign policy under Trump because - for him - it's all about resources and assets. Proof of this is everywhere, from his retweeting of the AI Trump Gaza video endorsing his view that Gaza should be developed into a Riviera, Canada and its vast natural resources being absorbed into the USA as 51st state, the mineral wealth of Greenland.

One of the things that worries me is whether Starmer and Macron really get this. US protection will come at a price for both the protected country and - as we are seeing now - all non-US NATO countries.

And if Trump views foreign policy in terms of resources and assets, rather than the preservation of rightful sovereignty, then he will not object when other countries like Russia and China do what he has done.

What would be interesting is what Trump does if China decides to take back Outer Manchuria, because it doesn't make sense to give up a peace accord with Europe unless you're signed up with someone else, like Russia.

Starmer may be even more of a statesman than we realise if he sees beyond the Ukraine - Russia conflict and is already pre-empting the US leaving NATO. Vance has already said he doesn't care about Ukraine, Musk tweeted over the weekend he wants the US to leave NATO AND the UN, so the direction of travel is clear.

Yes, but that is exactly how it has always been. But because we are a friend of America and they have kept us safe, the truth passes the media, or they omit it.

Trump spoke about not starting wars, which is a lie. America may not commit troops, but it funds and supports regime changes and has done since forever. The Americans were part of the coup in Ukraine in 2014. It was all because of how the government there was becoming a puppet of Russia. That was true and the coup was good for Europe because of the danger of Putin advancing West. But Ukraine still had a third of its people not supporting the coup, and Russia was pouring more insurgents into the Russian speaking East. Putin is an imperialist, he will never forget the Soviet break up.

So Ukraine became a puppet of two separate foreign policies. It couldn't operate without interference. They are not the only country that has the same problem where America was concerned. You only have to look at South America over the decades where they have been behind regime change. The New American Century Project, everything. It's not conspiracy, it's all there, openly published and never denied.

So we now add China to the equation and it's spreading tentacles. A third front. So America says, these are the problem. How do they deal with them ? Well, getting Putin on board for a start. And if that means marginalising Europe because it is lame, woke, and hardly worth the effort, then so be it. For reference, see J D Vance at the Munich summit.

But for years our foreign policy has been THEIR foreign policy. Until now. We are either with them or against them. We have sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind, 80 years later.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Yes, but that is exactly how it has always been. But because we are a friend of America and they have kept us safe, the truth passes the media, or they omit it.

Trump spoke about not starting wars, which is a lie. America may not commit troops, but it funds and supports regime changes and has done since forever. The Americans were part of the coup in Ukraine in 2014. It was all because of how the government there was becoming a puppet of Russia. That was true and the coup was good for Europe because of the danger of Putin advancing West. But Ukraine still had a third of its people not supporting the coup, and Russia was pouring more insurgents into the Russian speaking East. Putin is an imperialist, he will never forget the Soviet break up.

So Ukraine became a puppet of two separate foreign policies. It couldn't operate without interference. They are not the only country that has the same problem where America was concerned. You only have to look at South America over the decades where they have been behind regime change. The New American Century Project, everything. It's not conspiracy, it's all there, openly published and never denied.

So we now add China to the equation and it's spreading tentacles. A third front. So America says, these are the problem. How do they deal with them ? Well, getting Putin on board for a start. And if that means marginalising Europe because it is lame, woke, and hardly worth the effort, then so be it. For reference, see J D Vance at the Munich summit.

But for years our foreign policy has been THEIR foreign policy. Until now. We are either with them or against them. We have sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind, 80 years later.

I think Trump is far more focused on accumulating wealth than US foreign policy has every been. Had Trump been president in the 1960s I don't think he'd even consider going into Vietnam because there was nothing of financial value at stake, only ideology.

Russia has 11th biggest economy in the world, only 144 million people yet huge borders to police. The UK/EU is almost 4 time the population and 10 times the economy. Russia has a huge border to police (4,300 km with China alone) as well as nation states within that wish to break away from Moscow.

It seems crazy to bin off Europe to align with Russia, especially as it could fall apart (again) if Putin dies / is deposed / leaves office.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

f***ing Hell. Badenough sounding statesmanlike (by agreeing with Starmer).
What next!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And along comes Ed Davy to quibble.
Stop our 'dependency' on the US.
Stand up to Trump. Hold him to account.
Yes, that will work.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Starmer seems almost entirely devoid of hubris.
It sounds weird in a leader, especially after the Johnson era.
But I like it.

(If I were in parliament today, I would be swinging my massive metaphorical willy around.
One reason why I have not gone into politics .)

 

[jcdenton08]

And along comes Ed Davy to quibble.
Stop our 'dependency' on the US.
Stand up to Trump. Hold him to account.
Yes, that will work.

Ed should stick to Go-Karting naked or whatever. Now’s not the time, mate.

 

[bluenitsuj]

He is still a ****

 

[raymondo]

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

Could still happen - may even be easier for the EU to have Kier lead (we are still Europe ) .

 

[SouthSaxon]

Could still happen - may even be easier for the EU to have Keir lead (we are still Europe ) .

I thought this, on the basis that the EU has an Orban shaped obstacle to grapple with. Was that your thinking?

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

On Starmer. He seems loads more comfortable and impressive on the global stage.

I guess that's because there's actually something he can do. Every domestic choice is shit option 1 or shit option 2. Unsurprising given the legacy he was left.

But on the world stage, he looks like the statesman for the times and the leader, the western world and the European alliance will need.

Keep it up Sir Kier

 

[Giraffe]

On Starmer. He seems loads more comfortable and impressive on the global stage.

I guess that's because there's actually something he can do. Every domestic choice is shit option 1 or shit option 2. Unsurprising given the legacy he was left.

But on the world stage, he looks like the statesman for the times and the leader, the western world and the European alliance will need.

Keep it up Sir Kier

I thought exactly the same about Boris. I think the advantage of the International stuff is you can look at the bigger picture whereas the domestic stuff involves detail where you're heavily reliant on others, particularly the civil service to deliver. That's the hard part.

 

[Withdean South Stand]

I really hope that Sir Kier and Macron can strengthen Europe's alliances, because we're going to need them. The US has shown itself to be only as reliable as the outcome of their election every 4 years. We cannot rely on US support for the next 3 years at least and we have to be more independent than that. The threat of Putin is very real and we need to reinforce the union so we don't need the US.

It wouldn't do the world any harm if the US' influence is greatly diminished during this presidential term.

 

[ozzygull]

I don't agree with a lot of the decisions that have been made so far, but I am still happy that we seem to have at last have some people running the country that seem to be trying to do the right thing. The way Starmer has delt with the last few days has been impressive. Watching PMQ today seemed more like a bunch of adults on all sides having a grown up conversation about something very important. I can't remember the last time I watched that and didn't feel a sense of shame in our government.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I thought exactly the same about Boris. I think the advantage of the International stuff is you can look at the bigger picture whereas the domestic stuff involves detail where you're heavily reliant on others, particularly the civil service to deliver. That's the hard part.

Funnily enough, when I think of Boris I think exactly the same about Charlie Drake.

Here is Johnson, gadfly on the global stage:

 

[Eeyore]

I think Trump is far more focused on accumulating wealth than US foreign policy has every been. Had Trump been president in the 1960s I don't think he'd even consider going into Vietnam because there was nothing of financial value at stake, only ideology.

Russia has 11th biggest economy in the world, only 144 million people yet huge borders to police. The UK/EU is almost 4 time the population and 10 times the economy. Russia has a huge border to police (4,300 km with China alone) as well as nation states within that wish to break away from Moscow.

It seems crazy to bin off Europe to align with Russia, especially as it could fall apart (again) if Putin dies / is deposed / leaves office.

Indeed. So we ask why he is doing that.

I see two reasons, firstly the opportunities that Ukraine offers the US and secondly, that Russia has an unofficial alignment with China, who are the new enemy.

From this we have the consideration that the US feels NATO is no longer that important, so if Europe is worried about Russia then let them form their own alliances. On this point it could be argued that he is justified in feeling that way. After all, he did say 'America First'.

So I can see why he has support across the pond for all this. It would be fine if he genuinely meant that he wanted to focus on issues within his own borders, but we know that's not true. His first speech as president referenced the widening of Americas borders and he immediately started to bully countries. Canada, Europe, and then his sickening Gaza proposals. That's the Land of Hope and Glory run he's on. Wider still and wider.

But what Russia has on him, I don't know. All this is rather odd and nonsensical.

 

[Bodian]

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

NATO have not expanded eastwards per se - countries feeling threatened by Russia have applied to join NATO for their protection.

Are you saying that the NATO countries should have said 'Sorry, although you are obviously feeling threatened by Russia, you're going to have to continue feeling threatened by Russia, and you cannot have any joint protection?'