Sly and Sneaky Starmer's Latest Ego Trip.

[Cotswold]

We see 2Tier Starmer has skuttled off to Ukraine to offer them lord knows what.
Ukraine, the country run by a comedian who thought it was a good idea to take Russia on and then spent most of his time flying here and there begging money for his disastrous adventure. Little doubt that as some deal is in the offing in the Middle East he will want to try and get one up on Trump before he is POTUS. Starmer will then probably claim he did all the groundwork for Trump to arrange a deal. Without my intervention.......etc. You can just hear the rhetoric.

No doubt offering cash to rebuild Ukraine. Cash that the now mediocre Britain doesn't have. All we have is an ever-growing debt. Our debt is higher than Greece and productivity lower that most EU countries and in decline. We stopped being a World power after WWII, possibly after WWI thanks to Labour.

He is doing his best to give away the Chagos Islands before Trump arrives. When people give things away they don't pay for them to take them. Everyone except Starmer of course. He sent Rachel from Complaints to discuss trade deals with China and she never met a high ranking official. Only people who had to ask and get back to her. She was regarded with disdain by China's rulers.

I did presume that Labour would be bad but I didn't think they'd be a total disaster. They seem hell bent on destroying the country.

 

[Isaac]

Does the advent of several (not just UK) recent visits to Ukraine to discuss "security guarantees", mean that the idea of them joining NATO is being given up on?

 

[Cotswold]

I wonder if Ukraine is too fearful of Putin's response even if it indicated it might join NATO.
But I do think that the Starmer visit is a part of his attempt to brand himself as more an international politician. It may be more helpful to him if XI didn't ignore him as he did at Davos.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Looks like Ukraine joining NATO is off the table. The amusing conversation is regarding asking Russia joining NATO

 

[Cotswold]

Starmer is off to see Donald Trump on Thursday.
I expect that Donald will run rings around him. Starmer, who clearly must have a decent memory, as he's a barrister. But his problem is that he needs to prepare and follow that preparation to the letter. He cannot think on his feet and is not innovative in any way, lacking the necessary intelligence to compete. He has already stumbled by announcing additional donations to Ukraine to "defy" Trump as he has claimed. In fact he has done exactly what Trump wanted and reduced the money that the US needs to tip down the bottomless pit of the war in Ukraine.
I cannot see that it will go down well as Starmer spent a lot of his legal career defending many who did not have any great enthusiasm for Britain. Apart from wanting top live here.

If he ends up on TV and gives one of his boring lectures, watch out for his chicken, or nodding dog performance. As he rambles on, his head pecks forewords like a chicken when he tries to emphasise a point.

There is no doubt that Starmer will let us down making matters far worse than they would have been. Plus British Ambassador Meddlesome Mandleson, is sticking his oar in, which will turn the meeting into a total disaster.

 

[Isaac]

I do tend to agree with Trump on the Ukraine issue. And I am completely unaffected by accusations of Russian Propoganda, because there is nothing wrong with something being true even if it also happens to be something Russia is saying.

Ukraine is clearly fighting a war it cannot win. The first few months, maybe the first year, maybe 1.25 years, I can see people saying "No, Wait. I really think we can win this one! Give us a little more time". But 3 years in - it's ridiculous, we're just funneling billions into a bottomless pit when the very likely result is negotiation over land in the end anyway. Why put billions more and more lives lost before coming to the exact identical conclusion???

And as for "Ukraine never should have started it" phrase, I think it's a matter of opinion. Some people say a barfight was 'started' by the first person who exchanged words, others would say it's the first blow. Ukraine certainly refused to negotiate land, that much is true - even though they pretty much knew they could not win the war.

This does not make Russia "right", of course - Russia is still an awful bully who we wish we could have stopped without starting WW3 - but it does make other factors too obvious to pretend to ignore. Factors like NATO expansion and factors like Ukraine not negotiating especially at this point.

At this point the most likely thing that will happen if they KEEP fighting is that Russia will win more decisively than ever and take over all of Ukraine. Do they really want that? There is gumption and then there is just stubbornness.

 

[Isaac]

watch out for his chicken, or nodding dog performance

I will have to watch for that! Could be amusing.

 

[Isaac]

it's just the tough reality. At this rate, Ukraine isn’t on track for a clear-cut military victory unless something major changes. The war has settled into a war of attrition, and time tends to favor Russia since it has more resources, a larger population, and a government that can sustain losses longer

 

[Pat Hartman]

This does not make Russia "right", of course - Russia is still an awful bully who we wish we could have stopped without starting WW3 - but it does make other factors too obvious to pretend to ignore. Factors like NATO expansion and factors like Ukraine not negotiating especially at this point.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown us the idiocy of the UN. The UN allowed the Russian bully to invade a member country and because Russia is on the security council, Russia was able to stymie all UN objections. The country who "invades" is generally wrong. Ukraine was never a threat to Russia even though Russia was afraid Ukraine would be accepted into NATO. What is the point of the UN if it doesn't stop wars of aggression like this one?

Once the USSR fell, the need for NATO went away. We should have embraced Russia and kept them as friends instead of a threat. They did have nukes and so we needed to deal with that but the presence of the nukes became significantly more dangerous as the USSR disintegrated. We managed to get the Ukraine to divest itself of its USSR nukes with the promise of protection. We failed on that one big time. And that is 90% on Biden's head with at least 10% coming down on Obama for allowing Russia to take the Crimea. Putin may be a bully but it's not like we didn't know that. Biden could not have handled the situation any worse than he did. He delayed actual military help until it was too late and things went downhill from there and because Biden owed Zelensky for his son Hunter's no show job that paid millions of dollars to the Biden crime family, Biden managed to get the war hawks in Congress to just throw money Zelensky's way and not ask for proper accounting or even repayment terms so Zelensky just stole what he wanted to. Talk about a clusterf**k. There is no good solution. Large parts of Ukraine are in ruins. A generation of their young men are dead and it will be decades before they can recover from that. Their economy doesn't exist AND Russia is now occupying even more territory that used to "belong to" Ukraine. Trump is now left to salvage what he can for the Ukrainian people.

 

[Isaac]

this is all subjective I know, but I feel like after about 1 year, or 1.5 years, Ukraine should have been willing to cede land. If that is going to be the end result why throw away another 10 or 50,000 lives needlessly. It is truly sad, the whole thing. The UN was a failing idea from the get-go.

Sovereignty is nothing to mess with. UK was right to get out of that awful thing they call EU.

 

[Pat Hartman]

this is all subjective I know, but I feel like after about 1 year, or 1.5 years, Ukraine should have been willing to cede land.

They probably would have been if the money train were not still running at full speed dumping billions into Zelensky's hands and he never had to pay back or account for how any of it was spent.

 

[Isaac]

They probably would have been if the money train were not still running at full speed dumping billions into Zelensky's hands and he never had to pay back or account for how any of it was spent.

If I was him, I would have been sorely tempted to take a few million and sequester right away for my own use later...

 

[CJ_London]

I feel like after about 1 year, or 1.5 years,

So after 1-1 1/2 years of your neighbour moving the boundary line on to your plot you would do what?

 

[Mike Krailo]

So after 1-1 1/2 years of your neighbour moving the boundary line on to your plot you would do what?

Why on earth would you ever let that happen without a fight on day one?

 

[Mike Krailo]

I have a question for you all about the latest skirmish between Trump and Zalinski. This guy dissed the president on doing any kind of deal, but the whole rare earth minerals thing really bothers me. Does Zalinski actually have rare earth minerals or are the rare earth minerals on Russian territory making the whole deal seem ridiculous? Where did the idea that Ukraine has rare earth minerals come from? If he has none of these minerals to begin with, how can there be a negotiation about them? It's all very confusing to me.

 

[CJ_London]

Apparently the minerals exist in Ukraine and to some extent in the area currently held by the Russian invasion. Not saying the minerals can be economically extracted.

Seems to me trump wants a share (do these minerals exist in the USA? I don’t know) which he either gets by negotiating with Zelenski or putin - whoever provides the best deal gets his support.

On the one side he wants payment plus interest for the exaggerated claims for level of support already provided by the USA. On the other a new deal with Russia that still gets him access to the minerals and perhaps a reduction in the cost of the arms race

Don’t forget that Ukraine is (or was) one of the largest exporters of grain to the free world - reduction of which is a contributor to global inflation.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Thanks for your input CJ, the whole thing is very mysterious to me. The one thing I'm trying to nail down is "Are there rare earth minerals available to mine in Ukraine?" Sure they could have some type of minerals, but it's the rare earth one's that are the ones everybody needs to power all their electronics that really matter. I just don't know where that idea came from or if it's true or not.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The first few months, maybe the first year, maybe 1.25 years, I can see people saying "No, Wait. I really think we can win this one! Give us a little more time". But 3 years in - it's ridiculous, we're just funneling billions into a bottomless pit when the very likely result is negotiation over land in the end anyway. Why put billions more and more lives lost before coming to the exact identical conclusion???

Does anyone remember the "police action" in Vietnam where the generals were never allowed to blitzkrieg the enemy and that "action" dragged on for years, with a really humiliating retreat that was the fall of Saigon and an ending that left a lot of Americans disillusioned enough to start a real anti-war movement? It tore the country apart.

Does anyone remember Operation Desert Storm that, because Gen. Schwartzkopf was allowed to go in and knock everything down, took only four days before it was over? That wasn't a police action, it was a war of doing to the enemy thoroughly before they did anything to us. The speed and success of that action left the country feeling exhilarated. We didn't have TIME for an anti-war movement to start because the whole war was over way too soon and was way too successful.

Does anyone remember the quagmire that was Afghanistan? The Russians tried to fight that battle and got kicked out. The USA tried to fight that battle and the final withdrawal from Afghanistan was a disaster. It seems to me that between Russia and the USA, Afghanistan ground on for 20 years and the Islamic guerillas outlasted everyone.

There is no way to win an war of attrition by grinding away at it. You either knock it all down HARD and all at once or you weren't there to win anyway. Zelinsky has little or no chance unless he gets EU support.

 

[moke123]

So after 1-1 1/2 years of your neighbour moving the boundary line on to your plot you would do what?

This made me laugh as it happens probably more than you think. I can think of probably 6 I've been involved with in the last 10 years. Arrests, lawsuits, right down to the throwing garbage over the fence and spraying each other with hoses. Somebody always winds up on probation.

 

[Cotswold]

It was refreshing to see DJT perform at the Zelensky meeting in the White House on Friday 28th February.

No smarmy, wokey double-speak, trip around the houses meeting. Straight in, to the point, tell it as it is stuff. None of the usual politicians cr*p like "we had a useful meeting that will be a firm basis for our next meeting". Meaning sometime never, if they can avoid it.

Trump was right, it shouldn't have started, it has drifted, it should end. The UK and the EU have dragged their feet and let's face it, if Trump hadn't forced the issue, it would have just trundled on for years. Basically it was ill-founded from the start. Ukraine could never win. A bit like Canada, Mexico, or Cuba deciding to go to war with the USA.

I also liked the fact that JD Vance was a part of it. Usually the VP is nowhere to be found, only showing up at election time. I admit I didn't watch it all but what I saw was reassuring.

Trump's methods are such a difference to the UK and the EU, where they attend meetings in their hundreds. Talk and agree about whatever they are going to do then, once out of the building, promptly forget everything until the next time. They are always in the process of doing something though.

Thursday 27th February was the peak of Starmer's career.
He is regarded by many as bit of a grifter and had obviously talked the King into providing the invites.......purely for Starmer's own advantage. Initially DLT has agreed with his Chagos deal, mainly because of the invites and that Starmer is paying the £30 billion+ invoice. But Trump did say he will need to see the detail before agreeing. Which presumably means he may/will veto it later. Starmer is no competition to Donald.

We'll see what results on Sunday with the UK, EU and Ukraine meeting. Nothing decisive is my guess. I wouldn't mind but the UK is no more of a World power than is France, Holland, or India. Everything we had was frittered away in the two World Wars and any that is left we are frittering away on social services. Starmer want's to be seen as some sort of a World leader but the fact is, he couldn't lead a queue. He is at best an overpromoted manager.

Interesting times indeed.