New Leaders of the Free World

kazzerb

How any one can believe a word that comes out of the mouth of Starmer is beyond me

I think that you mean Trump😊

What marks a big difference between Trump’s first presidency and this present one is a new extremist and highly damaging ideology concocted by people like Musk and Vance who have deeply troubling ideas about democracy and a new Alpha Male era.

Why the attacks on Starmer? Do you want the other liars back? I am still sympathetic towards Starmer, he has a tough job on his hands.

The way things go in the next few days will show his true colours I think.

keepingquiet

Why the attacks on Starmer? Do you want the other liars back? I am still sympathetic towards Starmer, he has a tough job on his hands.

The way things go in the next few days will show his true colours I think.

He has been highly praised for his diplomatic skills shown in Washington by the American press and European.

Babs03

If Putin and Trump are so against NATO I can only imagine it must still serve a purpose. Also if they are so against the EU, this too must serve a purpose.
The UK burned its boats with the EU but must now unite with Europe or face becoming a pariah state allied to an enemy superpower, made up of the US and Russia combined with perhaps China joining forces.
Trump promised a new world order and this is it so we either hit the ground running or face the consequences.

I think I disagree with all of that. With the exception of possibly the first sentence.

Whitewavemark2

kazzerb

How any one can believe a word that comes out of the mouth of Starmer is beyond me

I think that you mean Trump😊

No Whitewave some people just like to grumble. The fact thst it makes little sense doesn't stop them enjoying it

I've probably missed this being posted but so glad Starmer is meeting Zelenski this afternoon before they all meet at Chequers tomorrow.

PoliticsNerd

MaizieD

I'm always curious as to what exactly is the 'Free World*?

Free of what?

How about:

The term "Free World" historically refers to countries that are characterized by democratic governance, individual liberties, and market-oriented economies, especially in contrast to authoritarian regimes. It was widely used during the Cold War to describe nations aligned with the United States and its allies, who supported political freedom and capitalism, as opposed to the Soviet Union and its allies, which were seen as representing oppression and communism.

In contemporary usage, "Free World" may still evoke a similar sense of nations committed to democratic values, human rights, and freedoms, although the geopolitical context has evolved since the end of the Cold War. It can also be used more loosely to refer to countries that promote civil liberties, freedom of speech, and other democratic principles.

Well.

www.brookings.edu/articles/an-inconvenient-truth-addressing-democratic-backsliding-within-nato/

P.S To those countries cited in the article we can now add the US which Trump is clearly determined to turn into a dictatorship.

I'll read it later MaizieD but lovely to have extra information.

maizie we are all aware of the changing shape of the politics in these countries, but how does that negate the need to defend ourselves against aggressors?

At present all are still democracies, including the USA

I was not aware that Putin can call on Turkey for support.

TBH the article is a tad out of date.

At present all are still democracies, including the USA

They're not all 'liberal democracies' though. Hungary for a start...

OK I am happy to toddle down that road if you wish, but if it is the term “Free World” that you are uncomfortable with, I am totally relaxed about changing the title.

It makes no difference to the substantive argument imo. NATO members can no longer rely on the USA for leadership, and must therefore pick up that baton and run with it. Europe seems as good a place to start bearing in mind that there is a war on our continent and we are all threatened by the same aggressor.

Babs03

If Putin and Trump are so against NATO I can only imagine it must still serve a purpose. Also if they are so against the EU, this too must serve a purpose.
The UK burned its boats with the EU but must now unite with Europe or face becoming a pariah state allied to an enemy superpower, made up of the US and Russia combined with perhaps China joining forces.
Trump promised a new world order and this is it so we either hit the ground running or face the consequences.

I do agree Babs03

OK I am happy to toddle down that road if you wish, but if it is the term “Free World” that you are uncomfortable with, I am totally relaxed about changing the title.

😁

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of any one state thinking it's the 'leader'. The US as 'leader' imposed an economic hegemony as part of its fear and hatred of communism (mostly because of the anti communist stance of the devisor of that economic doctrine) which has been deeply damaging, as we are discovering with huge economic inequality leading to the rise of far right populism in many countries.

But I'm toddling off to do some gardening now...

Whitewavemark2

I think that the question or reality is that we have no choice.

I totally agree that the E.U. and The U.K. need to organise their Self Defense - whether it be NATO or a E.U. & U.K. organisation that stands together in lieu of the maniacs on the planet ..

Russia is a foe not a friend. North Korea and possibly Iran are potentially as well.

However, do note: The nuclear countries are The U.K., France, Germany, I believe Poland as well and perhaps others.

Iran is nuclear however, their basic target is Israel ..

This Gaza crisis is another hairy development with Trumpista wanting to build a Riveria of Hotels for the rich and famous on the Gaza Coast and get rid of the Palestinians from this region ..

Alot of difficulties ..

EUROPE really needs to put a move on their OWN SELF DEFENSE ..

we are all threatened by the same aggressor

Are we?

To my mind at least, Russia has struggled a lot in Ukraine.
I cant see them coming near the Uk, or say France or Germany in a big way, anytime soon.
But then, there are the nukes..

Frenchgalinspain

France and U.K. are the only countries with nuclear capability.

fancythat
I mentioned in a previous post somewhere, that Europe does have hopefully some leeway, as Putin isn’t in a position neither economically nor militarily to push very far at the moment. But that time will come.

No-one in Europe wants to lead and no-one wants to or can pay to finance a defeat of Russia.
No-one's got any money.
One of Germany, France or the UK (possibly also Poland) or a coalition of all three has to lead Europe;
UK and France have independent nuclear deterrents so must be involved.
It's the same when people start banging on about the "reparation" b*******" . No-one's got any money so who's going to pay for it if not the ordinary taxpayer.

It's the same when people start banging on about the "reparation"

I don't think that people quite understand what reparation is. It is monies pad by the defeated party to compensate for the damage it has done.

I think people probably mean money for rebuilding Ukraine's infrastructure and repairing war damage. There's £200billion worth of frozen Russian assets in Europe...

The NATO alliance has always been ostensibly not secure with various fallings out between members at different times, But it has held for 80 years - and I think it will again.

I agree that the time has come for the US to elave the organisation and for Europe to organise its own defense.

The EU was formed because after the war its founders believed that by encouraging mutual economic development we could avoid war between European countries.

I am beginning to think that actually, encouraging military cooperstion between nations will do that job better. With armies working together, with arms supply coming from fellow NATO members the military will be too clsoe to each other to want to fight each other. NATO should looke to expanding to include all European countries, including, eventually, Russia.

If that ahd been in being now, it would have been a lot more difficult for Russia to invade Ukraine.

Wyllow3

It's not just all about defence. What's sad is that it was for a very long time also an understanding that there's been shared culture, participation as democracies in the world order.

It's become clear not just last night, but with Vance's attacks on Europe (unless they were the European far right parties) that the US's intention is now to try and fragment and dominate Europe.

There is of course no way we'd get 27 countries to agree on everything, this is not at all the point, its going to be a slow process but worth the building.

Agree with this. It might sound impossible but the alternative might not bear thinking about.

The concept of a European Army has been rumbling around for years. Ironically, it was the US who originally poured cold water on the idea, which had been gaining traction, in favour of maintaining NATO. The fact that they now want to pull the plug on NATO is seen as a betrayal. The logistical and cost implications of a European Army are staggering and while all this wholesale reorganisation is going on it will leave Europe more vulnerable than it has been since 1939.

The irony of the U.K. now taking leadership of the construction of some form of European defence is not lost nearly a decade after the ridiculous decision to leave the EU, is not lost on many commentators.

Starmer has said that a peace plan will be constructed by European leaders and then discussed with the USA
.

Greyduster

The concept of a European Army has been rumbling around for years. Ironically, it was the US who originally poured cold water on the idea, which had been gaining traction, in favour of maintaining NATO. The fact that they now want to pull the plug on NATO is seen as a betrayal. The logistical and cost implications of a European Army are staggering and while all this wholesale reorganisation is going on it will leave Europe more vulnerable than it has been since 1939.

I seem to remember the idea of a “compulsory EU Army” was used, along with immigration, to broker Brexit!