If you truly believe that a land war in Europe has no geopolitical ramifications for the UK or its allies, then it would obviously be foolish to spend much of anything on Ukraine. But back in the real world…
What’s the money going on?Should we spend £3 billion or not?
What’s the money going on?
Wake up from his bad night, change the sweaty sheets and vow never to drink that much again.I don’t think I’ve read anything as stupid as this but let’s go with it.
Donald Trump invades Canada and declares it as a 51st state. He bombs many cities in Canada and imprisons any opposition.
What would you as PM of the Uk do in that situation?
I’m teetotal but sureWake up from his bad night, change the sweaty sheets and vow never to drink that much again.
Call me a stickler for details but it is kind of an important questionA simple yes or no answer would suffice…
Should we spend £3 billion or not?
Cheaper than actually standing up to tyrants ourselves like we might have done in the past so Yeah, we probably should. You talk about this a lot for someone who says they don't care about it, btw.
Which assumes that £3bn would move the dial in swinging the war effort Ukraine’s way. It won’t unfortunately.
if you pretend our contribution(s) wasn't always going to be part of a larger contribution from Europe.
Do you think Ukraine can win this war? To give a definition here: victory by ejecting the Russian army from the occupied regions (excluding Crimea).
It has and has always had zero chance.Do you think Ukraine can win this war? To give a definition here: victory by ejecting the Russian army from the occupied regions (excluding Crimea).
And if the US invaded Greenland they would have no chance either, so I guess you'd be quite happy for that to happen so the US can get what it wants through aggression.It has and has always had zero chance.
And if the US invaded Greenland they would have no chance either, so I guess you'd be quite happy for that to happen so the US can get what it wants through aggression.
I suppose while Canada is the main target perhapsWell it tends to get what it wants through aggression anyway not that I see Greenland under too much threat just yet
In the end there is one discussion here from a uk perspective
This country economically from what i am seeing is in a crises. Demand in the sector I work in is as low as I’ve known it since I’ve been in it and on top of that we are getting punitive measures against business which will cause job losses and business closures.
Against that backdrop should the UK be increasing defence budgets and spending billions on Ukraine?
I say no. What do others say?
He just says whatever will benefit him the most.as much as I think Starmer is a bag of balls, at least he's stood solid with EU leaders and backed the stance that sanctions on Russia shouldn't be lifted until peace is established.
as much as I think Starmer is a bag of balls, at least he's stood solid with EU leaders and backed the stance that sanctions on Russia shouldn't be lifted until peace is established.
Who isn’tHe just says whatever will benefit him the most.
A lot of European leaders are standing up to Trump.Who isn’t
A lot of European leaders are standing up to Trump.
I actually give him credit, the last thing we want to do is piss off our main Ally and who we do so much trade with. If he is clever, we can actually take advantage of everyone else throwing toys out of the pramA lot of European leaders are standing up to Trump.
Then there's Starmer...
Keir Starmer says he ‘likes and respects’ Donald Trump
PM agrees with US president that Europe must bear greater burden for its collective self-defencewww.theguardian.com
I agreeA lot of European leaders are standing up to Trump.
Then there's Starmer...
Keir Starmer says he ‘likes and respects’ Donald Trump
PM agrees with US president that Europe must bear greater burden for its collective self-defencewww.theguardian.com
has anyone through to tell Trump he's supposed to be our main ally as he's not acting like it. How much shit is it acceptable for him to hurl our way before you'd expect our government to respond?our main Ally
Unfortunately a lot of people won't see it that way, they won't grasp the reality that Trump is threatening tariffs on the EU and not the UK. And as things stand there's a chance we could do a unilateral trade agreement with the US that would give us a massive advantage over the rest of Europe.I actually give him credit, the last thing we want to do is piss off our main Ally and who we do so much trade with. If he is clever, we can actually take advantage of everyone else throwing toys out of the pram
Trump’s been too busy trying to annexe his country’s main ally to notice what we’re up to.has anyone through to tell Trump he's supposed to be our main ally as he's not acting like it. How much shit is it acceptable for him to hurl our way before you'd expect our government to respond?
I was talking more about trade, to be fair, I got the threads confused - Germany says it 'will not give in' as Trump announces 25% car tariffsDo you have some examples?
I'd say most of Europe has been pretty consistent in their messaging - prioritising their support for Ukraine over standing up to Trump.
It's largely irrelevant as he would happily throw us or anyone else under the bus if he thinks he'll benefit. He and his cohorts care nothing about alliances or agreements, just what they can get for themselves. We could lick Trump's arse so hard we could tickle his tonsils but he'd still happily put tariffs on at a moment's notice.I actually give him credit, the last thing we want to do is piss off our main Ally and who we do so much trade with. If he is clever, we can actually take advantage of everyone else throwing toys out of the pram
It's largely irrelevant as he would happily throw us or anyone else under the bus if he thinks he'll benefit. He and his cohorts care nothing about alliances or agreements, just what they can get for themselves. We could lick Trump's arse so hard we could tickle his tonsils but he'd still happily put tariffs on at a moment's notice.
Donald Trump is holding a gun to the head of Volodymyr Zelensky, demanding huge reparations payments and laying claim to half of Ukraine’s oil, gas, and hydrocarbon resources as well as almost all its metals and much of its infrastructure. The latest version of his “minerals deal”, obtained by The Telegraph, is unprecedented in the history of modern diplomacy and state relations.
The new draft states that the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund will control Ukraine’s “critical minerals or other minerals, oil, natural gas (including liquified [sic] natural gas), fuels or other hydrocarbons and other extractable materials”.
All critical materials listed in the US Energy Act are covered, including both rare earths and 50 other minerals such as lithium, titanium, cobalt, aluminium and zinc.
The US will control infrastructure linked to natural resources “including, but not limited to, roads, rail, pipelines and other transportation assets; ports, terminals and other logistics facilities and refineries, processing facilities, natural gas liquefaction and/or regasification facilities and similar assets”.
Three of the five board members on the new fund will be chosen by the US. It will have “A” shares and golden shares. America will receive all the royalties until Ukraine has paid off at least $100bn of war debt to the US, with 4pc interest added – less than the $350bn floated earlier by Mr Trump but still half of Ukraine’s GDP, and unpayable. Ukraine has only “B’ shares and will receive 50pc of the royalties only once its arrears are paid off.
The fund is registered in Delaware but under New York jurisdiction. The US has the first right of refusal on all projects. It has authority to examine the books and accounts of any Ukrainian ministry or agency whenever it wants during working hours.
The US can veto sales of Ukraine’s resources to other countries, which might mean banning rare earth sales to China but might also restrict sales to Europe. Prof Riley said: “It is not compatible with EU membership, and perhaps that is part of the purpose. I have to wonder whether the real intention might not be to force Zelensky to reject it.”
The US pays in no investment capital, deeming its contribution to be past military aid. No security guarantee is offered.
the terms are if anything even harsher than the original drafts, which were deemed predatory and neo-colonial by international lawyers, and which caused outrage in much of Europe. The document smacks of the unequal treaties imposed on China by the European powers in the 19th century.
There is definitely truth in that, though not to such an extent as with Trump.You could just replace the word Trump with USA - it’s always been thus
As has been said many, many times...it's America, what else were you expecting to happen?Fucking hell. Trump presumably wants them to reject this deal so he can blame them for being the bad guys.
There's no way they can accept this, surely.
Revealed: Trump’s plan to force Ukraine to restore Putin’s gas empire
America holds gun to Zelensky’s head with unprecedented reparation demandswww.telegraph.co.uk
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?