Maybe everyone should totally ignore Trump and give him no publicity. After all, he thrives on self importance.
So, what changes would that bring about in his policy on the war? Would he just revert to passively maintaining the Biden-era status quo, because radical departures aren't bringing him the publicity?
Trump and Vance were bullies and their behaviour was awful. However, I get the impression that Zelenskyy thought that Trump was going to get him a deal which would be some sort of a win.
I don't quite understand your point - surely as leader of Ukraine obviously Zelenskyy must be trying to strike a deal to get his country support? That was the whole point of the visit, wasn't it? And Trump had given the impression that this might be at least possible. But perhaps he never meant it at all.
This was not a deal, it was a mafia like shakedown. Extortion. You want our support, you pay for it. Both Macron and Steiner told Drump their countries were not expecting any reimbursement.
Going into it, I knew it was not going to end well.
Trump and Vance were bullies and their behaviour was awful. However, I get the impression that Zelenskyy thought that Trump was going to get him a deal which would be some sort of a win.
I don't quite understand your point - surely as leader of Ukraine obviously Zelenskyy must be trying to strike a deal to get his country support? That was the whole point of the visit, wasn't it? And Trump had given the impression that this might be at least possible. But perhaps he never meant it at all.
Zelenskyy wants the USA to help get all of his country back and I can't criticise him for that. Trump, however, just wants the war to end
trump and vance are evil bullies. I can't help but wonder if this wasn't an act to goad Zelenskyy into not playing the trump game by standing up for himself and his country. Then, t could possibly work with putin to overwhelm Ukraine and just take the minerals that he wants. With all that's going on here, it's hard not to look at the worst possible scenarios.
There are not enough bad words to describe the orange menace, vance and musk. And I'm not in the habit of thinking bad words about people. Normally.
If that's what he wants, then he has a strange way of showing it.
All appearances are that he wants to reward Putin for starting the war by handing him everything he wants, it looks like he wants to reward the criminal actions of the Putin regime and Russian military rather than see them in front of the International Court paying for their crimes.
Ending the war needs the US to be standing with Ukraine, alongside Europe and other free nations in unambiguous support against Putin and Russian aggression and criminal actions. It means tightening sanctions against Russia even further, not treating Putin as someone worthy of making a deal with.
Ending the war needs strong leaders to stand against Putin, not whining LOSERS to weak to be anything other than the puppet of Putin.
Trump has to come up with a deal that is agreeable to both sides if the war is to stop.
But there is no sign that Trump is trying to make any prospective deal palatable to Ukraine. Rather he is trying to make the "no deal" alternative unpalatable to them. That seems like being on Russia's side to me.
I would not put it past Trump to supply military aid to Russia.
Maybe everyone should totally ignore Trump and give him no publicity. After all, he thrives on self importance.
So, what changes would that bring about in his policy on the war? Would he just revert to passively maintaining the Biden-era status quo, because radical departures aren't bringing him the publicity?
Trump thrives on attention ( see his smart-arse comment about how hos disgraceful performance in the White House would make great TV).
Rhubarb is quite right; any oxygen deprivation is all to the good.
If I was Zelenskyy I would tell him where to stick his mineral deal. It would mean Europe and none US allies go in it alone but if it has to be, it has to be. Trump and Vance has disgraced not only the US but possibly the whole of the West.
Zelensky left the Oval Office and got himself on Fox News, of all places, demonstrating how a political leader speaks and works for their nation. Such a contrast to the petty theatricals of the current US leadership. And, a very clever choice of going on Fox which is much closer to speaking directly to Trump supports than other major news networks.
I do doubt Starmer pissing off Trump ahead of Zelensky’s visit would have been helpful - I think they wanted to give the Ukraine the best possible chance in their following meeting.
Starmer knows that the advocate who loses his temper loses the argument. Trump, in his meeting with Starmer, seemed to be giving hints of concessions to Ukraine. Vance didn't like that, hence his attendance at the meeting and eventual sabotage. They will now expect Zelensky to resign. He won't be safe anywhere in the world. Vance is evidently calling the shots - or Putin?
It makes Starmer's recent visit seem even more craven by comparison.
I don't understand.
Starmer appears to be trying to get Trump to exempt the UK from his lashing out at the rest of the world, rather than standing with the rest of the world to challenge Trump. It looks like appeasement and a willingness to sacrifice our allies to keep in Trump's good graces. And then making the poorest people in the world pay for it through aid cuts.
In the light of the ghastly Trump/Vance performance, no doubt the meeting of EU/NATO leaders being hosted by Starmer this weekend will try to ensure that our PM does not go down the road of appeasement.
Quite what Zelenskyy will do next is anyone's guess, but I hope he doesn't decide to resign. Mind you, who could blame the poor man, after three years of war, thousands of his countrymen dead, and now a total betrayal by the *leaders* of a country supposedly his ally and friend?
I think Starmer is acting as the go-between between Europe and Trump, much as Macron did between Ukraine and Russia. This also explains why the summit of European leaders this weekend is in London.
Quite what Zelenskyy will do next is anyone's guess, but I hope he doesn't decide to resign.
A resignation at this time wouldn't help Ukraine. There'd be no mechanism to hold an election in the current situation, so who would take over? And, Ukraine needs someone who will stand up against bullies to fight the Ukrainian corner in any negotiations, and Zelensky has shown willingness and capability to do that. An announcement that he won't contest the next election after there's peace and the opportunity to hold one is a different matter, but even that plays into the hands of those saying he'd be a "lame duck" because he won't be President in a few years time.
I think Starmer is acting as the go-between between Europe and Trump, much as Macron did between Ukraine and Russia. This also explains why the summit of European leaders this weekend is in London.
I do doubt Starmer pissing off Trump ahead of Zelensky’s visit would have been helpful - I think they wanted to give the Ukraine the best possible chance in their following meeting.
What makes you think that "they" wanted to give Ukraine any kind of chance? Long before yesterday Trump had made it crystal clear that he saw the solution as being a hole-in-the-corner deal between him and Putin regardless of the feelings or rights of Ukraine.
Trump doesn't see the presidency as being about governance or leadership, he sees it as all about "the deal" because he fancies himself as "The Greatest Businessman (bigly) in the World". Now that would be bad enough, but his actual record in business, as opposed to his warped view, is that he isn't now, nor ever has been, a good businessman - his record of bankruptcies makes that very clear even before you drill down into the history of the Trump empire.
Trump is a bully and a braggart and his disgraceful performance (because that is what it was) yesterday showed him in his true colours, and it is all about Trump because he sees the presidency as personal. Buried in the ranting yesterday you'll find what really riles him about Zelensky, and it has nothing at all to do with money, debt, gratefulness or minerals: he is still pissed-off that the Ukrainians didn't give him what he wanted in relation to Hunter Biden.
Every time I think I've reached the end of my shock, embarrassment, and horror of this POTUS, he find a way to reach new lows. How utterly disgraceful. Trump and Vance could have dropped their trousers, taken dumps on the Oval Office rug, flopped around in each other's excrement, lit each other's hair on fire, and ran screaming out of the room and it would have been an improvement.
I do doubt Starmer pissing off Trump ahead of Zelensky’s visit would have been helpful - I think they wanted to give the Ukraine the best possible chance in their following meeting.
What makes you think that "they" wanted to give Ukraine any kind of chance?
I meant European leaders wanted to give Zelensky the best chance of a successful meeting with Trump.
Snow White, Superman, and Pinocchio were on a walk
They came to a sign that said "Contest for the most beautiful woman in the world."
Snow White says "I am entering it."
A little later she comes back with a big smile.
They ask, "How did you do?"
"First place." She beams.
They continue their walk.
Soon they came to a sign announcing: "Contest for the strongest man in the world."
"I am entering this," said Superman.
A little later he comes back with a big smile.
"How did you do?" the others asked.
"First place." Superman says.
They continue their walk.
Soon they came to another sign declaring: "Contest for the biggest liar in the world."
"I got this." says Pinnochio.
A little later he comes back with tears in his eyes.
"What happened?" asked the others.
"Who in the hell is Donald Trump?"
Trump and Vance were bullies and their behaviour was awful. However, I get the impression that Zelenskyy thought that Trump was going to get him a deal which would be some sort of a win.
I figure it's a win-win either way for him. If Trump is reasonable and makes a reasonable deal, then Zelenksy's country (and the U.S.) benefits. If not, then the world saw Trump being horribly unreasonable and that will encourage them to support the reasonable Zelensky.
Certainly, Zelenskyy himself doesn't seem to have lost any credibility or popularity in Ukraine, although some people (understandably) are sorry that the war will continue.
Every time I think I've reached the end of my shock, embarrassment, and horror of this POTUS, he find a way to reach new lows. How utterly disgraceful. Trump and Vance could have dropped their trousers, taken dumps on the Oval Office rug, flopped around in each other's excrement, lit each other's hair on fire, and ran screaming out of the room and it would have been an improvement.
Despite the gravity of the situation, this made me laugh out loud.
What an image! We are going to need humour to get through the coming times....
It makes Starmer's recent visit seem even more craven by comparison.
I don't understand.
Starmer appears to be trying to get Trump to exempt the UK from his lashing out at the rest of the world, rather than standing with the rest of the world to challenge Trump. It looks like appeasement and a willingness to sacrifice our allies to keep in Trump's good graces. And then making the poorest people in the world pay for it through aid cuts.
Standing against Trump would require far more military spending (and thus aid cuts) than what Starmer is doing.
Snow White, Superman, and Pinocchio were on a walk
They came to a sign that said "Contest for the most beautiful woman in the world."
Snow White says "I am entering it."
A little later she comes back with a big smile.
They ask, "How did you do?"
"First place." She beams.
They continue their walk.
Soon they came to a sign announcing: "Contest for the strongest man in the world."
"I am entering this," said Superman.
A little later he comes back with a big smile.
"How did you do?" the others asked.
"First place." Superman says.
They continue their walk.
Soon they came to another sign declaring: "Contest for the biggest liar in the world."
"I got this." says Pinnochio.
A little later he comes back with tears in his eyes.
"What happened?" asked the others.
"Who in the hell is Donald Trump?"
The version I heard was three leprechauns try to get into the Guiness Book for smallest hands, smallest feet, and smallest penis, respectively, with the punch line being "Who the feck is [name of the person you're telling the joke to]?"
It makes Starmer's recent visit seem even more craven by comparison.
I don't understand.
Starmer appears to be trying to get Trump to exempt the UK from his lashing out at the rest of the world, rather than standing with the rest of the world to challenge Trump. It looks like appeasement and a willingness to sacrifice our allies to keep in Trump's good graces. And then making the poorest people in the world pay for it through aid cuts.
Standing against Trump would require far more military spending (and thus aid cuts) than what Starmer is doing.
The aid cuts are a choice, and a bad one, not an inevitable consequence of spending more on defence. Starmer could have said to the public: "we promised we wouldn't raise certain taxes, and we meant it. The election of Donald Trump means that we cannot keep that promise. Defence spending must increase, and we must all pay our fair share. The chancellor will issue an emergency budget, which will include increases in all bands of income tax. Some will say that we should cut the aid budget to pay for this. They are wrong. Every pound we spend making the world a more prosperous place, a place where the name of 'Britain' is associated with vital help, a place where deadly diseases are met at source and vanquished, is ten pounds, a hundred pounds, we do not need to spend on defence and security in years and decades to come." The chancellor might then go further and announce a wealth tax to move ahead with retooling British industry to ensure that there is something to spend those increased taxes on.
It's reported that Mr Zelenskyy is to meet with King Charles at Sandringham tomorrow (Sunday).
I don't suppose we'll get to know what was said, but I daresay HM will be asking for advice on how to deal with the Orange Oaf if the latter should start ranting on at the King, during his forthcoming state visit, about taking Canada...
Mind you, I guess the King could always revoke his invitation.
The aid cuts are a choice, and a bad one, not an inevitable consequence of spending more on defence. Starmer could have said to the public: "we promised we wouldn't raise certain taxes, and we meant it. The election of Donald Trump means that we cannot keep that promise. Defence spending must increase, and we must all pay our fair share. The chancellor will issue an emergency budget, which will include increases in all bands of income tax. Some will say that we should cut the aid budget to pay for this. They are wrong. Every pound we spend making the world a more prosperous place, a place where the name of 'Britain' is associated with vital help, a place where deadly diseases are met at source and vanquished, is ten pounds, a hundred pounds, we do not need to spend on defence and security in years and decades to come." The chancellor might then go further and announce a wealth tax to move ahead with retooling British industry to ensure that there is something to spend those increased taxes on.
Exactly. Cuts in aid were not in the Labour party manifesto. So why is it ok for these to be implemented rather than a supertax on millionairres? It seems some promises are more binding than others.
The aid cuts are a choice, and a bad one, not an inevitable consequence of spending more on defence. Starmer could have said to the public: "we promised we wouldn't raise certain taxes, and we meant it. The election of Donald Trump means that we cannot keep that promise. Defence spending must increase, and we must all pay our fair share. The chancellor will issue an emergency budget, which will include increases in all bands of income tax. Some will say that we should cut the aid budget to pay for this. They are wrong. Every pound we spend making the world a more prosperous place, a place where the name of 'Britain' is associated with vital help, a place where deadly diseases are met at source and vanquished, is ten pounds, a hundred pounds, we do not need to spend on defence and security in years and decades to come." The chancellor might then go further and announce a wealth tax to move ahead with retooling British industry to ensure that there is something to spend those increased taxes on.
Exactly. Cuts in aid were not in the Labour party manifesto. So why is it ok for these to be implemented rather than a supertax on millionairres? It seems some promises are more binding than others.
There's a difference between doing something you didn't say you would do and doing something you said you wouldn't do.
That's the bind Labour put themselves in with their tax pledges.
The aid cuts are a choice, and a bad one, not an inevitable consequence of spending more on defence. Starmer could have said to the public: "we promised we wouldn't raise certain taxes, and we meant it. The election of Donald Trump means that we cannot keep that promise. Defence spending must increase, and we must all pay our fair share. The chancellor will issue an emergency budget, which will include increases in all bands of income tax. Some will say that we should cut the aid budget to pay for this. They are wrong. Every pound we spend making the world a more prosperous place, a place where the name of 'Britain' is associated with vital help, a place where deadly diseases are met at source and vanquished, is ten pounds, a hundred pounds, we do not need to spend on defence and security in years and decades to come." The chancellor might then go further and announce a wealth tax to move ahead with retooling British industry to ensure that there is something to spend those increased taxes on.
Exactly. Cuts in aid were not in the Labour party manifesto. So why is it ok for these to be implemented rather than a supertax on millionairres? It seems some promises are more binding than others.
There's a difference between doing something you didn't say you would do and doing something you said you wouldn't do.
That's the bind Labour put themselves in with their tax pledges.
"Labour is committed to restoring
development spending at the
level of 0.7 per cent of gross
national income as soon as
fiscal circumstances allow. "
It may not be breaking the letter of the manifesto but it's damn close, and it's certainly breaking spirit. Besides, Starmer's done the "circumstances have changed; all my election promises are now void" dance before, why should it bother him to do it again?
A very small tax rise for the wealthiest that they'll not even notice, and a removal of the various schemes that many of the richest use to dodge paying tax at all, would allow the government to both increase military spending and international aid, and quite possibly have a bit left over to invest in renewable technologies and other steps that will boost the economy (and, hence raise yet more in tax).
Comments
So, what changes would that bring about in his policy on the war? Would he just revert to passively maintaining the Biden-era status quo, because radical departures aren't bringing him the publicity?
This was not a deal, it was a mafia like shakedown. Extortion. You want our support, you pay for it. Both Macron and Steiner told Drump their countries were not expecting any reimbursement.
Going into it, I knew it was not going to end well.
Zelenskyy wants the USA to help get all of his country back and I can't criticise him for that. Trump, however, just wants the war to end
I disagree. He would claim that he hasn't got a side. Trump has to come up with a deal that is agreeable to both sides if the war is to stop.
There are not enough bad words to describe the orange menace, vance and musk. And I'm not in the habit of thinking bad words about people. Normally.
No he hasn't. Trump has always been on one side, the Trump side.
All appearances are that he wants to reward Putin for starting the war by handing him everything he wants, it looks like he wants to reward the criminal actions of the Putin regime and Russian military rather than see them in front of the International Court paying for their crimes.
Ending the war needs the US to be standing with Ukraine, alongside Europe and other free nations in unambiguous support against Putin and Russian aggression and criminal actions. It means tightening sanctions against Russia even further, not treating Putin as someone worthy of making a deal with.
Ending the war needs strong leaders to stand against Putin, not whining LOSERS to weak to be anything other than the puppet of Putin.
But there is no sign that Trump is trying to make any prospective deal palatable to Ukraine. Rather he is trying to make the "no deal" alternative unpalatable to them. That seems like being on Russia's side to me.
I would not put it past Trump to supply military aid to Russia.
Trump thrives on attention ( see his smart-arse comment about how hos disgraceful performance in the White House would make great TV).
Rhubarb is quite right; any oxygen deprivation is all to the good.
Hasn't that already been floated?
Well he seems to want Ukraine to capitulate, which would technically end the war.
I don't understand.
Starmer appears to be trying to get Trump to exempt the UK from his lashing out at the rest of the world, rather than standing with the rest of the world to challenge Trump. It looks like appeasement and a willingness to sacrifice our allies to keep in Trump's good graces. And then making the poorest people in the world pay for it through aid cuts.
Quite what Zelenskyy will do next is anyone's guess, but I hope he doesn't decide to resign. Mind you, who could blame the poor man, after three years of war, thousands of his countrymen dead, and now a total betrayal by the *leaders* of a country supposedly his ally and friend?
That election could, of course, go against him, as Churchill found out in 1945.
The irony of Brexit has not gone unnoticed...
What makes you think that "they" wanted to give Ukraine any kind of chance? Long before yesterday Trump had made it crystal clear that he saw the solution as being a hole-in-the-corner deal between him and Putin regardless of the feelings or rights of Ukraine.
Trump doesn't see the presidency as being about governance or leadership, he sees it as all about "the deal" because he fancies himself as "The Greatest Businessman (bigly) in the World". Now that would be bad enough, but his actual record in business, as opposed to his warped view, is that he isn't now, nor ever has been, a good businessman - his record of bankruptcies makes that very clear even before you drill down into the history of the Trump empire.
Trump is a bully and a braggart and his disgraceful performance (because that is what it was) yesterday showed him in his true colours, and it is all about Trump because he sees the presidency as personal. Buried in the ranting yesterday you'll find what really riles him about Zelensky, and it has nothing at all to do with money, debt, gratefulness or minerals: he is still pissed-off that the Ukrainians didn't give him what he wanted in relation to Hunter Biden.
I meant European leaders wanted to give Zelensky the best chance of a successful meeting with Trump.
They came to a sign that said "Contest for the most beautiful woman in the world."
Snow White says "I am entering it."
A little later she comes back with a big smile.
They ask, "How did you do?"
"First place." She beams.
They continue their walk.
Soon they came to a sign announcing: "Contest for the strongest man in the world."
"I am entering this," said Superman.
A little later he comes back with a big smile.
"How did you do?" the others asked.
"First place." Superman says.
They continue their walk.
Soon they came to another sign declaring: "Contest for the biggest liar in the world."
"I got this." says Pinnochio.
A little later he comes back with tears in his eyes.
"What happened?" asked the others.
"Who in the hell is Donald Trump?"
I figure it's a win-win either way for him. If Trump is reasonable and makes a reasonable deal, then Zelenksy's country (and the U.S.) benefits. If not, then the world saw Trump being horribly unreasonable and that will encourage them to support the reasonable Zelensky.
Certainly, Zelenskyy himself doesn't seem to have lost any credibility or popularity in Ukraine, although some people (understandably) are sorry that the war will continue.
Despite the gravity of the situation, this made me laugh out loud.
What an image! We are going to need humour to get through the coming times....
Standing against Trump would require far more military spending (and thus aid cuts) than what Starmer is doing.
The version I heard was three leprechauns try to get into the Guiness Book for smallest hands, smallest feet, and smallest penis, respectively, with the punch line being "Who the feck is [name of the person you're telling the joke to]?"
The aid cuts are a choice, and a bad one, not an inevitable consequence of spending more on defence. Starmer could have said to the public: "we promised we wouldn't raise certain taxes, and we meant it. The election of Donald Trump means that we cannot keep that promise. Defence spending must increase, and we must all pay our fair share. The chancellor will issue an emergency budget, which will include increases in all bands of income tax. Some will say that we should cut the aid budget to pay for this. They are wrong. Every pound we spend making the world a more prosperous place, a place where the name of 'Britain' is associated with vital help, a place where deadly diseases are met at source and vanquished, is ten pounds, a hundred pounds, we do not need to spend on defence and security in years and decades to come." The chancellor might then go further and announce a wealth tax to move ahead with retooling British industry to ensure that there is something to spend those increased taxes on.
I don't suppose we'll get to know what was said, but I daresay HM will be asking for advice on how to deal with the Orange Oaf if the latter should start ranting on at the King, during his forthcoming state visit, about taking Canada...
Mind you, I guess the King could always revoke his invitation.
Exactly. Cuts in aid were not in the Labour party manifesto. So why is it ok for these to be implemented rather than a supertax on millionairres? It seems some promises are more binding than others.
There's a difference between doing something you didn't say you would do and doing something you said you wouldn't do.
That's the bind Labour put themselves in with their tax pledges.
"Labour is committed to restoring
development spending at the
level of 0.7 per cent of gross
national income as soon as
fiscal circumstances allow. "
It may not be breaking the letter of the manifesto but it's damn close, and it's certainly breaking spirit. Besides, Starmer's done the "circumstances have changed; all my election promises are now void" dance before, why should it bother him to do it again?