Want to understand what Trump is doing?

Allira

Would that would make a jot of difference?

Well it might. Much better than doing nothing.

If Trump/Musk carry on as they are I reckon our government won't want to condone their behaviour.

I for one couldn't stand by and allow a visit from a man trying to bar women from voting.

MaizieD

^We can be active in our objections to any Trump visit to the UK.^

If Trump is invited I can see the prospect of a very big protest march in London. I'm prepared to go and wave a banner😆

Remember the Trump baby Blimp?

You could hang onto that

I think you are right about Putin trying to recreate the USSR foxie48 When he invaded Ukraine I thought that was the start of it. He possibly thought Ukraine would topple easily , partly because so many Russians live there and might support him. My Polish friend tells me Poland is very nervous about it all. They detested Russian dominance. No doubt the same applies to the other Eastern European countries.

David49

The UK is standing with the EU, but did very little when Russia made its feeble attack in 2021 when it could have stopped them and will do nothing now.

The land lost by Ukraine is gone we need to move on, together with the rest of Europe strengthen our defence and keep it strong.

Likewise with Crimea.
That peninsula has been fought over, given away, annexed for centuries.

However, if we think that border regions of a country which have been invaded by a foreign power should be relinquished to the invader, what message does that send to other leaders who think they can just take over regions or even whole countries?

We can be active in our objections to any Trump visit to the UK.

If Trump is invited I can see the prospect of a very big protest march in London. I'm prepared to go and wave a banner😆

Would that would make a jot of difference?

Allira

What do you suggest we do, then, PoliticsNerd
Send a posse of Gransnetters over on the next flight to tell them "Look here, this simply isn't cricket. Play by the rules, old chaps, or you'll have us to answer to".

Perhaps not, so let us know when you've sorted it all out, PoliticsNerd

We can be active in our objections to any Trump visit to the UK.

Nanna8Not in modern times and by invading Russia, Russia is normally the aggressor and has a long history of starting wars with it's neighbours. Japan did win the Russo-Japanese war at the turn of the last century when Russia was trying to expand further into Asia but fighting was not in Russia. When Germany invaded Poland in 1939 on it's North, South and Western borders, Russia took advantage by invading from the East, ever eager to gain more territory! The USSR lasted from 1922-1991 and created a military power that was seen as a balance to the US and the rest of Europe which many feel has helped to maintain peace in the West if not elsewhere. The Balkans are becoming increasingly unstable again and Russia has much to gain from instability in those countries. I'm increasingly concerned about Putin's desire to recreate the USSR in some form and I'm sure I'm not the only one which is another reason why Trump's appeasement strategy is dangerous.

The UK is standing with the EU, but did very little when Russia made its feeble attack in 2021 when it could have stopped them and will do nothing now.

The land lost by Ukraine is gone we need to move on, together with the rest of Europe strengthen our defence and keep it strong.

nanna8

Just looking back through history, has anyone ever defeated Russia ? Many have tried, including the French and Germans but Russia is huge, has dreadful weather in Winter and it’s peoples are tough and plenty of them.

Yes, Russia has lost many wars, including the one against Japan at the beginning of the last century which led to the Russian Revolution.

Russia is currently fighting wars in Mali against Al Qaeda and Islamic State, The Central African Republic Civil War and Burkhina Faso Jihadist insurgency as well as Ukraine according to the Wiki. Likes to get involved? Why?

Centuries ago he would have attacked and defeated all neighbouring countries, killed their populations, emptied their treasuries and taken their resources. He would have added them to his property and happily founded the Trumpian Empire, ("They create a desert and call it peace") Eventually a bigger and nastier bastard would have assassinated him and taken over the whole thing.

Since he can't do that these days (wanna bet?) he has enterd the narrative nearer the last sentence of that paragraph. The reputations of his predecessors have been asassinated and he has taken over the role that the Constitution saw as belonging to all the elected representatives of the nation of the United States (not just of one person. The President presides over the deliberations of the meetings, he doesn't rule by executive orders except in situations of extreme emrgency) He wants their treasury, their resources, their power over all US citizens, and the fear and submission to his will of other nations.

If we had thought of a bid for world domination before this, we would have imagined a clever and educated Machiavelli who has floated to the top of the political pool and wanted to swim in a larger ocean. Who would have thought ofsomeone who had never been part of the elected government and didn't understand the constitution or how making and administering laws was done, or anything at all about the wider world?. We would not have suspected a failed businessman who had been bankrupt five times, the not-very-intellectual son of a property mogul who dodged millions of dollars in taxes. (though his sister Maryanne said she "knew better even as a child than to even attempt to compete with Donald".

I'm very glad to see that the UK is standing with the EU on this.
Trump appears to want to sort it out between himself and Putin. Not even involving Ukraine, apparently. Which is totally unacceptable.

Just looking back through history, has anyone ever defeated Russia ? Many have tried, including the French and Germans but Russia is huge, has dreadful weather in Winter and it’s peoples are tough and plenty of them.

We help to maintain stability by joining together and standing up for common values not by standing aside and allowing aggressors to threaten and bully our weaker neighbours. Our greatest fault was not acting strongly enough in 2014 when Russia took Crimea, what we are witnessing now is the result of Putin feeling emboldened by that previous success. Many historians believe if we had acted against Hitler more quickly we could have saved millions of lives and I am inclined to agree.
Trump doesn't understand the long term consequences of his actions, you only have to look at his foreign policies from his first term of office and his current actions with regard to USAID. He's basically opening the door to any country to bully their weaker neighbours. If you think this is ok then you're proposing a different world to the one I want to inhabit.

Each war could probably be ended quickly by the aggressive intervention of a new combatant power, with superior forces and weapons, who is prepared to ignore the subtleties of the situation and just arbitrarily hammer one side or the other into submission.

The question is, what would that achieve for after the hostilities? Killing every single individual on one side or the other of the conflict is impossible - and even if it were possible (and ethical) there would be relatives, friends and sympathisers who were not present at the scene to be annihilated. They would not passively accept that solution.

You have heard of the hydra? A mythical beast with three heads. Cutting off one head resulted in it growing three more. "Ending a war" by using genocide is like a hydra. For every death you create more people who hate you and will plan revenge. Their revenge on your population will spawn more hatred, and there will never be true peace.

The only thing that could work is patiently untangling the concerns and fears that caused the conflict and sorting them out. It would take someone with more humanity and statesmanship that President Trump or his (current) advisor possess.

ronib

Yes unfortunately Dickens in conversations about Ukraine, the dominant theme is defeating Putin. He must not be allowed to win so the fighting should continue. Loss of young lives on both sides is never a concern. In fact the argument usually ends with ‘would you be willing to send your son to fight in Ukraine?’ . Well would you? I would not.

Putin can’t be defeated he has the power to create serious problems for Europe, not least the UK, he would see directly helping Ukraine as declaration of war and attack strategic targets. Russia is no match for NATOs conventional weapons and is highly unlikely to attack a member state accepting the loss if territory is the lesser of 2 evils and save thousands of lives.

ronib, the problem is, assuming your view that Mr Putin should just have Ukraine, what you feel should happen when this gentleman, feeling happily empowered, sets his sights on the next place he'd like.
You might feel a little anxious if you were Finnish.

I don’t think peace would ever be achieved between Palestinians and Israelis without some sort of third party negotiations. Hamas wants to annihilate Jews and whilst they exist nothing will change. Trump may or may not be able to end the killing but at least he has power and ideas about it which is more than can be said for anyone else.

You paint Trump as a peacemaker single-handedly ending wars David49. Suggesting this solely due to one person ignores the efforts of countless diplomats, negotiators, and even previous administrations. A "bullying" approach may achieve a temporary end to of hostilities, but it risks creating resentment and instability that could lead to future conflicts. Durable peace requires addressing the root causes of conflict, not just forcing a settlement. Your argument also seems to devalue the agency and self-determination of the people in these conflict zones.

While it's true that Europe has hesitated to fully engage militarily, suggesting this solely due to unwillingness is misleading. There are valid concerns about escalation with Russia, economic dependence on Russian energy, and differing national interests within the EU. The "why should the US" argument ignores the potential costs of inaction and the US's role in maintaining a stable international order.

Your post also simplifiesvthe situation in Gaza by blaming Hamas solely for the violence and civilian casualties. No one can aprove of Hamas's tactics but the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the ongoing occupation, blockade of Gaza, and displacement of Palestinians, can't be ignored. A lasting solution means addressing the underlying grievances and creating a path towards a two-state solution. To say that Trump is a "pussy cat" compared to Hamas ignores the power imbalance and the disproportionate impact of Israeli military actions on Palestinian civilians.

Your post implies that because Trump has the "power to end the killing," his methods should be accepted without question. This is a dangerous argument that justifies authoritarianism and ignores the importance of accountability, human rights, and international law. The end does not always justify the means, especially when those means involve coercion, disregard for human rights, and the undermining of democratic principles.

While everyone of us wants peace achieving it through simplistic or coercive measures can have unintended consequences. A sustainable peace requires addressing the root causes of conflict, respecting international law, and upholding human rights. Your post overlooks these complexities and justifies actions that could undermine long-term stability and security.

Yes unfortunately Dickens in conversations about Ukraine, the dominant theme is defeating Putin. He must not be allowed to win so the fighting should continue. Loss of young lives on both sides is never a concern. In fact the argument usually ends with ‘would you be willing to send your son to fight in Ukraine?’ . Well would you? I would not.

David49

Trump is cast as a warmonger but is using his power to end 2 wars that have cost 100,000 lives plus, yes he is bullying everyone for a settlement but it seems most of GN are happy to see the killing continue.

It’s unrealistic for Ukraine to regain the land lost, Europe could go ahead without the US but don’t want to get involved at any price so why should the US.

The terrorists that occupy Gaza are not going to leave willingly and they don’t care how many civilians are killed, Hamas is safe in its tunnels which is why so many civilians are killed. Why do so many on GN want the killing to continue, compared to Hamas Trump is a pussy cat, he has the power to end the killing I say good luck to him.

... but it seems most of GN are happy to see the killing continue.

Seriously?

You are saying that questioning motive, method - orthodoxy - means that?

It is no victory in war to capitulate to the demands of dictators David49. Do you not see what’s happening here?

Trump is cast as a warmonger but is using his power to end 2 wars that have cost 100,000 lives plus, yes he is bullying everyone for a settlement but it seems most of GN are happy to see the killing continue.

It’s unrealistic for Ukraine to regain the land lost, Europe could go ahead without the US but don’t want to get involved at any price so why should the US.

The terrorists that occupy Gaza are not going to leave willingly and they don’t care how many civilians are killed, Hamas is safe in its tunnels which is why so many civilians are killed. Why do so many on GN want the killing to continue, compared to Hamas Trump is a pussy cat, he has the power to end the killing I say good luck to him.

Whitewavemark2

They will be counted in their 10s of thousands.

It matters not a jot to this grotesque man.

The other effect of course is that the USA will loose the influence of soft power it has built up over many years.

China will be ready to pick that up.

I think Whitewave, that Trump and the far and hard-right in this country, simply don't understand how much cheaper it is to help, accruing soft power, rather than fighting or setting up the conditions for war.

Hard power, such as Trump offers, i.e., military power, diplomacy backed by force, and economic coercion, seem to be the only tools he and our own hard-right recognise. Very chest-beating but also pretty adolescent political behaviour.

These tools typically carry high costs and built-in risks and consequences but you do get to appear to be the biggest baboon in the jungle. Sadly Trump, in so many ways, has never moved past this behaviour.