Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Britain will never leave the US relationship because that is primary avenue that gives Britain global relevance today.
Should they advocate doing so, US can simply dangle the carrot of a trade agreement and they will get in line.
I suppose they can also crank up the volume on the "scary russians are coming / boogeyman" narrative.
That's a tried & tested way to scare their populations since the Cold War so that's not going away anytime soon.
Britain doesn't have a trade agreement with the US, although it does have a hundred trade agreements with other countries and other organisations such as the EU and CPTPP.
Britain also doesn't have that much history of becoming involved in US led wars, and in reality the post 9/11 war in Iraq was the first time Britain became involved in a major US led conflict since the Korean War some fifty years earlier. Britain stayed out of Vietnam and other such conflicts, as did the rest of Europe.
There was also Afghanistan, however that was a UN backed NATO operation and Britain was therefore mandated to become involved, although sending significantly greater forces and contributing more than the other major European powers was a massive mistake, and both Iraq and Afghanistan now haunt British policy making and decisions. They are also not something we ever wish to repeat, and I think the consensus prior to those wars in which we stayed out of US led overseas conflicts such as Vietnam is now been firmly re-established.
It's also worth noting that the Britain has a lot of European alliances outside of the NATO, and has made alliances with other countries rather than the US in terms of the next generation of fighter planes, as well as in terms of the sharing of nuclear technology etc with France, and Britain could potentially develop a nuclear submarine system and other such systems if needed, and in this respect Britain has options beyond the US, and this is entirely sensible given the nature of current US politics.
I also think the so called special relationship is little more than a myth, and I don't see the few remaining US bases in Britain or in Europe remaining for that much longer, and given problems related to US influence and interference in Europe perhaps this is something we should welcome, whilst being over reliant on the US and it's political whims is not a sensible long term policy.
If need be Britain can look to increased defence spending, to say 3% and could increase reserve forces, and we have the option to introduce some form of selective military service, and it is sensible to examine such issues in relation to future scenarios and in relation to being more self reliant.
Last edited by Brave New World; 02-09-2024 at 05:48 AM..
Britain doesn't have a trade agreement with the US, although it does have a hundred trade agreements with other countries and other organisations such as the EU and CPTPP.
Britain also doesn't have that much history of becoming involved in US led wars, and in reality the post 9/11 war in Iraq was the first time Britain became involved in a major US led conflict since the Korean War some fifty years earlier. Britain stayed out of Vietnam and other such conflicts, as did the rest of Europe.
There was also Afghanistan, however that was a UN backed NATO operation and Britain was therefore mandated to become involved, although sending significantly greater forces and contributing more than the other major European powers was a massive mistake, and both Iraq and Afghanistan now haunt British policy making and decisions. They are also not something we ever wish to repeat, and I think the consensus prior to those wars in which we stayed out of US led overseas conflicts such as Vietnam is now been firmly re-established.
It's also worth noting that the Britain has a lot of European alliances outside of the NATO, and has made alliances with other countries rather than the US in terms of the next generation of fighter planes, as well as in terms of the sharing of nuclear technology etc with France, and Britain could potentially develop a nuclear submarine system and other such systems if needed, and in this respect Britain has options beyond the US, and this is entirely sensible given the nature of current US politics.
I also think the so called special relationship is little more than a myth, and I don't see the few remaining US bases in Britain or in Europe remaining for that much longer, and given problems related to US influence and interference in Europe perhaps this is something we should welcome, whilst being over reliant on the US and it's political whims is not a sensible long term policy.
If need be Britain can look to increased defence spending, to say 3% and could increase reserve forces, and we have the option to introduce some form of selective military service, and it is sensible to examine such issues in relation to future scenarios and in relation to being more self reliant.
I believe you are incorrect on one point there, the UN didn't rubber stamp anything regarding an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
"The military campaign in Afghanistan was not specifically mandated by the UN - there was
no specific Security Council Resolution authorising the invasion - but was widely (although
not universally) perceived to be a legitimate form of self-defence under the UN Charter."
Addtionally, NATO states are not compelled to particpiate either. Article 5 indicates " Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked."
A NATO member has the right to forego involvement if that's what is chooses to.
I count the Afghanistan invasion and occupation as part and parcel of following Washington's orders.
The fact is the US and Europe meddled in Ukrainian affairs and have been responsible for it's pro western government we see today. In just a few years ago almost every single western media was blasting Ukraine for being utterly corrupt. It was the main reason it was never allowed to be in the EU. It mostly likely never will be unless out of pressure from the US. Even the US has recognised that Russia won't lose. The territory that Russia currently controls and annexed won't ever be taken back
I feel for the Ukrainian people to be used by the west this way and then left to rot. Do you know what the Ironic thing is. The Ukrainian people never expected Russia would invade because they believed they would be defended. Not only did the West not intervene Now with the aid drying up Russia is just holding knows it can push forward. Russia is playing a war of attrition
What Russia did was wrong however lets not pretend that this aggression is any worse than what the US would do. The US threatened to start a Nuclear war for Cuba allowing Russia to potentially point weapons at the US mainland. Imagine even if Mexico wanted to join Bric and create an alliance with Russia in which Nuclear missiles could be pointed at the US? How would the US respond? They would no doubt invade. The problem is these Superpowers, the US, Russia, China and a few emerging others are just bullies who want the world to bend to their will or else.
As for other journalists being declined by Putin. Are you surprised why? No other media would have allowed this to go out unedited. The BBC would have cut down a two hour interview into 30 mins to make it look like Putin wants a WW3 and won't stop until he gets there. This was just a full interview, purely unedited and actually some good questions asked. I don't know much about Tucker Carlson but this interview is the biggest story in the west. I wonder how it will affect future aid to Ukraine though as it seems most people in the west no want it to stop
Ukraine corrupt? Perhaps so but small fry compared to Putin's Russia which is now even more corrupt than it was as the USSR. Also lets not forget that there's more than Ukraine involved. How do you think Poles, Czechs, Hungarians., the Baltic States, Romania regard Putin's Russia? Fifty years of domination by Communist tyrants isn't easily forgotten. You'll remember that these countries wasted no time in applying for NATO membership along with EU membership. Russia under Putin is still very much a nasty neighbor to beware of and the invasion of Ukraine proved that.
When Putin's tanks moved into Ukraianian territory the phone lines in Washington must have been totally jammed. It's quite obvious that the Europeans alone are incapable of dealing with bad neighbors so it's always the USA that is called upon like it or not.
I dare say you're right about what the end of the war will be, especially if Trump's back in the WH. His adoration of Putin is almost like that of a Taylor Swift fan. He'll bully Zelensky to the bargaining table and a slice of the Ukraine will be handed to Putin on a plate.
"Putin" by the way is the French name for a *****. Guess the shoe fits
I believe you are incorrect on one point there, the UN didn't rubber stamp anything regarding an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
"The military campaign in Afghanistan was not specifically mandated by the UN - there was
no specific Security Council Resolution authorising the invasion - but was widely (although
not universally) perceived to be a legitimate form of self-defence under the UN Charter."
Addtionally, NATO states are not compelled to particpiate either. Article 5 indicates " Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked."
A NATO member has the right to forego involvement if that's what is chooses to.
I count the Afghanistan invasion and occupation as part and parcel of following Washington's orders.
Prime Minister Tony Blair wasn't "ordered" by Washington to join in the Iraq and Afghanistan operation. He and his government went in willingly and with eyes fully wide open. France declined if you remember so where does the bit about following Washington's orders come into it?
Ukraine corrupt? Perhaps so but small fry compared to Putin's Russia which is now even more corrupt than it was as the USSR. Also lets not forget that there's more than Ukraine involved. How do you think Poles, Czechs, Hungarians., the Baltic States, Romania regard Putin's Russia? Fifty years of domination by Communist tyrants isn't easily forgotten. You'll remember that these countries wasted no time in applying for NATO membership along with EU membership. Russia under Putin is still very much a nasty neighbor to beware of and the invasion of Ukraine proved that.
When Putin's tanks moved into Ukraianian territory the phone lines in Washington must have been totally jammed. It's quite obvious that the Europeans alone are incapable of dealing with bad neighbors so it's always the USA that is called upon like it or not.
I dare say you're right about what the end of the war will be, especially if Trump's back in the WH. His adoration of Putin is almost like that of a Taylor Swift fan. He'll bully Zelensky to the bargaining table and a slice of the Ukraine will be handed to Putin on a plate.
"Putin" by the way is the French name for a *****. Guess the shoe fits
True Russia is extremely corrupt but it doesn't matter how corrupt Russia, the US, Europe or Ukraine is. All that matters is that this war will go in Russia's favour as it already has. They have annexed a part of the country. It's now Russia and there won't be anything the west can do about it. I feel sorry for the Ukrainian people who thought that they would be defended by the west and are now suffering a war they never thought would come. Biden has done no better than what trump will do. The money is and will completely dry up and Russia will move once again to take the rest of the country. Only negotiations can end the war at this point
Ukraine was a westrern experiment pushed too far. Now it has been abandoned
True Russia is extremely corrupt but it doesn't matter how corrupt Russia, the US, Europe or Ukraine is. All that matters is that this war will go in Russia's favour as it already has. They have annexed a part of the country. It's now Russia and there won't be anything the west can do about it. I feel sorry for the Ukrainian people who thought that they would be defended by the west and are now suffering a war they never thought would come. Biden has done no better than what trump will do. The money is and will completely dry up and Russia will move once again to take the rest of the country. Only negotiations can end the war at this point
Ukraine was a westrern experiment pushed too far. Now it has been abandoned
Nope wrong again. The war will end with Russia keeping what it has already occupied in Ukraine . Free Ukraine will be fast tracked into NATO. Putin will be in no position to argue. The Russian Army has proved to be a hollow man. He's all done invading neighbouring countries. The Russian economy has taken a beating and I very much doubt that Germany or the rest of Europe will start importing Russian gas and oil anytime soon or as long as he is at the helm He's now regarded as a pariah by most of the world with only China and North Korea as allies. He's been condemned by the ICC as a war criminal with warrants issued for his arrest
A virtual prisoner in his own country with very limited outside travel options, Finland and Sweden recently admitted to NATO and Ukraine to be added sooner than later, huge losses in soldiers and materiel. Was it all really worth it for a slice of eastern Ukraine ?
Sooner or later the Russian people will be asking the same question That's when his real worries will start
Last edited by James Austen; 02-09-2024 at 11:34 PM..
I believe you are incorrect on one point there, the UN didn't rubber stamp anything regarding an invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
"The military campaign in Afghanistan was not specifically mandated by the UN - there was
no specific Security Council Resolution authorising the invasion - but was widely (although
not universally) perceived to be a legitimate form of self-defence under the UN Charter."
Addtionally, NATO states are not compelled to particpiate either. Article 5 indicates " Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked."
A NATO member has the right to forego involvement if that's what is chooses to.
I count the Afghanistan invasion and occupation as part and parcel of following Washington's orders.
The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was a multinational military mission in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014. It was established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1386 pursuant to the Bonn Agreement.
The end of combat operations in Afghanistan in 2014 saw Operation Herrick replaced by Operation Toral (2015 - 2021) the UK's contribution to the NATO Resolute Support Mission, which concluded in 2021 when the US Biden adminstarion withdrew from Afghanistan without even informing or fully consulting other NATO allies.
However in terms of Iraq was no UN pretext or mandate for any operations or the creation of a UN ISAF forces, and the invasion of Iraq is therefore deemed an illegal war, and was very different to operations in Afghanistan which were largely conducted under the UN ISAF umbrella.
As for Article 5 it had no bearing on the UN ISAF operations is Afghanistan and is irrelevant.
Last edited by Brave New World; 02-10-2024 at 09:00 AM..
As for the recent Putin interview by Tucker Carlson it did raise some valid points in terms of NATO, and I can't help thinking Putin should have just stuck to these relevant points in the interview.
In reality after the end of the Cold War and the end of the so called Iron Curtain and the end of the Warsaw Pact, there should have been a move towards European's taking responsibility for their own defence and a move away from reliance on the US and US interference in European affairs.
What happened instead was the US continually pushed for the expansion of NATO despite guarantees made to Russia and despite warnings from other European leaders, and US politicians have just antagonised Russia further (as well as China and other nations), and these include the likes of Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and numerous others.
On top of this you have US CIA interference in Russian politics and US interference in Ukraine, and this has helped lead to increased Russian aggression, and the same is true of the Pacific region and China, and these nations are now working together with others in order to build an alternative to the post Cold War US global economic and military hegemony.
At the same time US politics is radically changing, with the possibility of increased isolationism and a possible move way from NATO and US bases in Europe, meaning the European nations must now deal with the fall out from all of this, and must now re-evaluate their own defence policies and European defence collaboration, however the sensible time to do this was just after the end of the Cold War and not after US led NATO expansion and US interference has left Europe with a massive mess to deal with.
I do however welcome the fact that US interference in Europe and European affairs may finally be coming to an end, despite the mess the US has helped create and which now looking like being the sole responsibility of Europe to clean up, and lets hope the US doesn't leave an even bigger mess through it's increasing interference in other parts of the world including the Far East.
Last edited by Brave New World; 02-10-2024 at 09:03 AM..
The EU has the authority, as does the British Parliament to request the removal of all American Forces from Europe and the United Kingdom at anytime .
As for the US creating a mess in Europe the fact is that Europe was always a mess of little nations constantly going to war with each other and exploiting the native peoples of far off lands. The middle east troubles of today can be traced to colonial interference following WW One when oil was was the prize to be taken and the race was on to take whatever could be grabbed first
The Ukrainians have a right to defend themselves. They're not some "other kind of Russians" as some would believe. They were oppressed by Russia for hundreds of years and the reason that many Ukrainians fought on the side of the Germans in WW2
The absolute peak of naivety is to believe that expanding NATO to eastern Europe was a mistake. Without NATO Putin would have been busily intimidating and coercing the former nations of the Soviet bloc into a new Russian hegemony. He has made it clear on several occasions that his ambition is to "restore the Russian empire.
The expansion of NATO in fact made Europe far safer and it's clear that after the Ukraine conflict is over that Russia's days of warmongering are over also
Russia's future more than likely is to become a vassal state of China
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
