Rutte and Starmer seem to be committed to the goal of keeping Trump on board with NATO and the Atlantic alliance, no matter how much subservience this involves. I am not sure this is the right path to follow.
A Dutch historian I follow was warning about Rutte in this context the other day - saying everyone talking about Europeans coming together underestimated Rutte's 'sliminess'.
Looks like that may have been a well-informed comment.
A Dutch historian I follow was warning about Rutte in this context the other day - saying everyone talking about Europeans coming together underestimated Rutte's 'sliminess'.
Looks like that may have been a well-informed comment.
I didn't know that.
I mean, I can completely understand the desire to maintain the American alliance. The alternative is very demanding and rather frightening. And there is the hope that MAGA will not always be in charge. So I am not saying that the Rutte/Starmer line is indefensible. But it has considerable moral and practical hazards.
Perhaps as Zelensky has got to meet King Charles before Trump, the Orange ne may deciide hedoesn't want to come here after all. Rumour has it that a State Visit can't be arranged until 2026 anyway.
I should think both Rutte and Starmer (and probably Macron) are very well aware of the financial consequences to NATO if Trump cuts loose. I should think they are also aware of the possibility that he has already decided to do just that.
The defence of Ukraine, serious and important though that is, may be just a pawn in Trump’s wider game. As I said elsewhere, I think he seeks partnership with Russia to act as a brake on Chinese expansionism. Europe? Forget it. Not so important. NATO? A waste of US dollars given a rapprochement with Russia.
I should think both Rutte and Starmer (and probably Macron) are very well aware of the financial consequences to NATO if Trump cuts loose. I should think they are also aware of the possibility that he has already decided to do just that.
Sure. But I think Macron is more prepared to consider the idea that NATO is unsalvageable and that Europe may have to undertake its own defence independent of (and possibly even in opposition to) the USA.
Already it seems to be that in terms of foreign relations it is not as clear as it was that it is better for the UK and Europe to be closer to the USA than to China. China's domestic policy is still much worse than that of the US but the Trump/Putin rapprochement makes the US and its allies ever-more-vulnerable to Russian interference. China, ISTM, is less likely to interfere in European elections or assassinate people with novichok (though I may be wrong).
European nations rely on the US for vital elements of their defence, they've built their defence infrastructure around the NATO Alliance for 75 years and it's going to take a long time to separate out the US elements of the Alliance should that be needed. Even more so if European nations are going to police a cease fire in Ukraine, it's not going to be possible to do that effectively without US support. There are significant parts of European military equipment that depend on US military contractors to maintain, without US support a lot of the kit used by European militaries will not be reliable long term. Probably the biggest US asset that European militaries, and Ukraine, rely on is intelligence.
How long will it take, and how much will it cost, for Europe to develop and deploy a replacement for GPS? Or the intelligence from US satellite observations and intercepts? Or, to replace US supplied weapons with European produced equivalents? Almost certainly much longer than 4 years, by which time Trump shouldn't be President. It's essential that European nations maintain a constructive and friendly relationship with the US, even if it's impossible to work with Trump.
First of all, it’s clear that Trump sees everything from the point of view of a businessman. The only way he knows of getting the result he wants is in “the deal”. And his method is bullying, lying, bribing, insulting his opponent. He doesn’t appear to comprehend the meaning of diplomacy.
Second, it’s pretty clear now following the meeting with President Zelensky that his attitude is driven by personal envy. Zelensky is everything Trump probably wishes he was. He is young, fit, attractive, seems to be extremely popular at home. He’s a war leader, he’s been living in a country with bombs falling all around, he’s been to the front line. Everything Trump wants to be but is not. Zelensky’s reported reply when he was offered an evacuation flight at the beginning of the war: “I need ammunition, not a ride” probably sticks in Trump’s craw.
I should think both Rutte and Starmer (and probably Macron) are very well aware of the financial consequences to NATO if Trump cuts loose. I should think they are also aware of the possibility that he has already decided to do just that.
But also, afaict what Starmer has been talking about is a softened version of Trump's call for an immediate settlement rather than further financial support for an extended period of fighting.
Starmer and M Macron are, I hear, working on a Franco-British plan for a peace settlement (with other countries participating on a *the more, the merrier* basis).
Starmer and M Macron are, I hear, working on a Franco-British plan for a peace settlement (with other countries participating on a *the more, the merrier* basis).
The idea seems to be to circumvent Trump, his rapacity, hate, and lunacy...
Not really, given they are putting the ceasefire deal to Trump (and it relies on unsaid US backing) it's an attempt to square his call for an immediate ceasefire.
European nations rely on the US for vital elements of their defence, they've built their defence infrastructure around the NATO Alliance for 75 years and it's going to take a long time to separate out the US elements of the Alliance should that be needed. Even more so if European nations are going to police a cease fire in Ukraine, it's not going to be possible to do that effectively without US support. There are significant parts of European military equipment that depend on US military contractors to maintain, without US support a lot of the kit used by European militaries will not be reliable long term. Probably the biggest US asset that European militaries, and Ukraine, rely on is intelligence.
How long will it take, and how much will it cost, for Europe to develop and deploy a replacement for GPS? Or the intelligence from US satellite observations and intercepts? Or, to replace US supplied weapons with European produced equivalents? Almost certainly much longer than 4 years, by which time Trump shouldn't be President. It's essential that European nations maintain a constructive and friendly relationship with the US, even if it's impossible to work with Trump.
To what extent is US security also predicated on access to NaTo intelligence and European states acting as a buffer to Russia ?
Starmer and M Macron are, I hear, working on a Franco-British plan for a peace settlement (with other countries participating on a *the more, the merrier* basis).
The idea seems to be to circumvent Trump, his rapacity, hate, and lunacy...
Not really, given they are putting the ceasefire deal to Trump (and it relies on unsaid US backing) it's an attempt to square his call for an immediate ceasefire.
European nations rely on the US for vital elements of their defence, they've built their defence infrastructure around the NATO Alliance for 75 years and it's going to take a long time to separate out the US elements of the Alliance should that be needed. Even more so if European nations are going to police a cease fire in Ukraine, it's not going to be possible to do that effectively without US support. There are significant parts of European military equipment that depend on US military contractors to maintain, without US support a lot of the kit used by European militaries will not be reliable long term. Probably the biggest US asset that European militaries, and Ukraine, rely on is intelligence.
How long will it take, and how much will it cost, for Europe to develop and deploy a replacement for GPS? Or the intelligence from US satellite observations and intercepts? Or, to replace US supplied weapons with European produced equivalents? Almost certainly much longer than 4 years, by which time Trump shouldn't be President. It's essential that European nations maintain a constructive and friendly relationship with the US, even if it's impossible to work with Trump.
To what extent is US security also predicated on access to NaTo intelligence and European states acting as a buffer to Russia ?
Historically, certainly very heavily dependent. The relationships between US and European militaries was certainly much more than just US use of bases in Europe.
Probably the question at the moment is where the US sees the threat to their security. Is Russia still seen as the main threat? I suspect not - there are growing concerns about China, and Europe doesn't serve as a buffer to Chinese power in the way we were between the Soviet Union and US. If Trump isn't seeing Russia as a threat to his interests then the loss of European support isn't going to be seen as a big problem for him.
European nations rely on the US for vital elements of their defence, they've built their defence infrastructure around the NATO Alliance for 75 years and it's going to take a long time to separate out the US elements of the Alliance should that be needed. Even more so if European nations are going to police a cease fire in Ukraine, it's not going to be possible to do that effectively without US support. There are significant parts of European military equipment that depend on US military contractors to maintain, without US support a lot of the kit used by European militaries will not be reliable long term. Probably the biggest US asset that European militaries, and Ukraine, rely on is intelligence.
How long will it take, and how much will it cost, for Europe to develop and deploy a replacement for GPS? Or the intelligence from US satellite observations and intercepts? Or, to replace US supplied weapons with European produced equivalents? Almost certainly much longer than 4 years, by which time Trump shouldn't be President. It's essential that European nations maintain a constructive and friendly relationship with the US, even if it's impossible to work with Trump.
To what extent is US security also predicated on access to NaTo intelligence and European states acting as a buffer to Russia ?
There are a bunch of bases and installations where the primary benefit is to the US; in terms of the UK I'm thinking of Lankenheath, Menwith Hill, Cat Hill, Akrotiri, all of which probably benefit the US far more than the UK. Similarly for the 'Iron Dome' that Trump is talking about constructing, there is already an existing system in place where the interceptors are currently in Poland and the associated tracking radar is in the UK.
European nations rely on the US for vital elements of their defence, they've built their defence infrastructure around the NATO Alliance for 75 years and it's going to take a long time to separate out the US elements of the Alliance should that be needed. Even more so if European nations are going to police a cease fire in Ukraine, it's not going to be possible to do that effectively without US support. There are significant parts of European military equipment that depend on US military contractors to maintain, without US support a lot of the kit used by European militaries will not be reliable long term. Probably the biggest US asset that European militaries, and Ukraine, rely on is intelligence.
How long will it take, and how much will it cost, for Europe to develop and deploy a replacement for GPS? Or the intelligence from US satellite observations and intercepts? Or, to replace US supplied weapons with European produced equivalents? Almost certainly much longer than 4 years, by which time Trump shouldn't be President. It's essential that European nations maintain a constructive and friendly relationship with the US, even if it's impossible to work with Trump.
To what extent is US security also predicated on access to NaTo intelligence and European states acting as a buffer to Russia ?
There are a bunch of bases and installations where the primary benefit is to the US; in terms of the UK I'm thinking of Lankenheath, Menwith Hill, Cat Hill, Akrotiri, all of which probably benefit the US far more than the UK. Similarly for the 'Iron Dome' that Trump is talking about constructing, there is already an existing system in place where the interceptors are currently in Poland and the associated tracking radar is in the UK.
I’d agree with 3/4 - Akrotiri is more use to Britain overall I’d argue but this isn’t really the place to discuss it. I’d add Croughton though.
From the BBC website re the agreed four step plan.
The prime minister says leaders at the summit agreed four important steps:
1. To keep military aid flowing into Ukraine while the war is ongoing, and increase economic pressure on Russia
2. Any lasting peace must ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and security, and Ukraine must be at the table for any peace talks
3. In the event of a peace deal, European leaders will aim to deter any future invasion by Russia into Ukraine
4. There would be a "coalition of the willing" to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace in the country
Perhaps a bit short on specifics but interesting that the first step is about military aid continuation while the war is ongoing. Steps 2 to 4 are all about what would be necessary to maintain any peace deal.
And Zelenskyy got to visit the King wearing his traditional attire. The King didn’t seem to regard that as an offence to the dignity of his office. (Unlike “King” Trump.)
From the BBC website re the agreed four step plan.
The prime minister says leaders at the summit agreed four important steps:
1. To keep military aid flowing into Ukraine while the war is ongoing, and increase economic pressure on Russia
2. Any lasting peace must ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and security, and Ukraine must be at the table for any peace talks
3. In the event of a peace deal, European leaders will aim to deter any future invasion by Russia into Ukraine
4. There would be a "coalition of the willing" to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace in the country
Perhaps a bit short on specifics but interesting that the first step is about military aid continuation while the war is ongoing. Steps 2 to 4 are all about what would be necessary to maintain any peace deal.
And Zelenskyy got to visit the King wearing his traditional attire. The King didn’t seem to regard that as an offence to the dignity of his office. (Unlike “King” Trump.)
Trumps response is awaited with interest.
Correct me if I am wrong but it wasn't Trump who criticised Zelenskyy's clothing.
The four step plan is very good but it does not include a plan to persuade Putin to stop fighting. Starmer says that he doesn't trust Putin and he may well be right not to do so. However, Putin might well be reluctant to negotiate with anyone who says they don't trust him. I suspect that only Trump can get Putin to agree to stop fighting but to do that he has to avoid helping Ukraine gain an advantage.
From the BBC website re the agreed four step plan.
The prime minister says leaders at the summit agreed four important steps:
1. To keep military aid flowing into Ukraine while the war is ongoing, and increase economic pressure on Russia
2. Any lasting peace must ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and security, and Ukraine must be at the table for any peace talks
3. In the event of a peace deal, European leaders will aim to deter any future invasion by Russia into Ukraine
4. There would be a "coalition of the willing" to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace in the country
Perhaps a bit short on specifics but interesting that the first step is about military aid continuation while the war is ongoing. Steps 2 to 4 are all about what would be necessary to maintain any peace deal.
And Zelenskyy got to visit the King wearing his traditional attire. The King didn’t seem to regard that as an offence to the dignity of his office. (Unlike “King” Trump.)
Trumps response is awaited with interest.
Correct me if I am wrong but it wasn't Trump who criticised Zelenskyy's clothing.
It was, however, one of Trump's pet pool reporters from a far right outlet now he's purged the AP.
It was a MAGA reporter voicing a long running MAGA criticism about Zekenskyy’s clothing. I don’t know whether or not it was orchestrated. There was a report that White House staffers requested that he wear a suit and were offended that he did not. The request certainly implies a Trump request to put pressure on. Nobody else has asked that.
Then Vance jumped on the “disrespect” bandwagon. I’m pretty sure that was orchestrated, given what followed.
So I think accusations of disrespect were part of the orchestration.
On your second point. I’m sure Putin would like Trump to be the dealmaker and enforcer on Zelenskyy. The European leaders have told him what an acceptable deal should contain.
So, if he doubles down, which he may, that means he has to try to enforce his will on Europe. Which he could try to do by threatening to withdraw from NATO. Let’s see. I think that’s what Ursula von der Leyen (E.C. President) was hinting at.
I think NATO and the European countries are prepared for it. Not militarily yet. But certainly politically. That’s what the “coalition of the willing” means. Other countries may have also indicated their willingness to step in too.
Bluff and double-bluff? Maybe. But maybe they have wrong-footed Trump?
How long will it take, and how much will it cost, for Europe to develop and deploy a replacement for GPS?
You mean Galileo? It exists.
Galileo is built for civilian applications, initially developed while the US GPS included selective availability degrading positional precision. It may be included in some military systems, but many systems (especially those supplied by the US) rely on GPS. The cost to Europe isn't going to be in putting up satellites (as you say, they're basically there) but in replacing the systems that use GPS with systems using Galileo.
The cost to Europe isn't going to be in putting up satellites (as you say, they're basically there) but in replacing the systems that use GPS with systems using Galileo.
Most chipsets that implement such things support multiple GNSS and can take signals from more than one GNSS constellation. GPS and Glonass are most common as they are the oldest constellations, but plenty of phones support Galileo (most non-SE iPhone models post iPhone 8 have it, as an example).
I've a collection of GPS receivers that take multiple GNSS constellations at work. But, I've always assumed the chipsets in them are not the same as those used by the military for guiding cruise missiles and the like. Maybe military manufacturers and their customers consider mass produced chipsets for consumer products to be good enough.
When it comes to important clothing for an important event, I recall that Trump turned up very late to visit the Queen wearing a decidedly untidy crumpled suit that looked as though he had slept in it.
When it comes to important clothing for an important event, I recall that Trump turned up very late to visit the Queen wearing a decidedly untidy crumpled suit that looked as though he had slept in it.
Noting this puts you on the same level as that reporter. Nice.
Totally fair. Also low. But enjoy thinking you occupy higher ground. Every time someone makes fun of his hair or his orange make-up or his ugly suits or the weird way he stands or his over-long ties or how fat he is -- and I have done all those things -- they trivialize the unbelievable danger that he presents.
We are not so stupid or complacent here in the Antipodes to be unaware of just how dangerous he is.
As for his grotesque appearance that in fact serves to magnify the horror that is unfolding before our eyes.
Trust me it isn’t funny and at the risk of belabouring the point I wonder what his adoring hordes
( excluding flunkies such as Musk, Vance etc) think about their hero now.
His horrible face which is the embodiment of evil.
The coiffure is absurd but not grotesque, as is the orange makeup.
And the weird baby-pout expression. I don't think I've ever seen a photo of him genuinely smiling.
I think the baby-pout mouth is a deliberate attempt to try and tauten his double chin. Also he always holds his head peculiarly high like he is looking down on everyone else.
A thought: perhaps Starmer should get the Peace Prize?
A bit early for that, but at least he's trying to deal sensibly a situation not of his making. His cautious and pragmatic approach may well work - thank gods we have a grown-up as PM, despite his faults and failings, and those who regard him as an evil socialist dictator...
Grotesquerie abounds in Trump's circle. Witness Musk's ridicupus cap, which for some reason he wore to a cabinet meetin.
That's how the US right demonstrates their connection to the "common man" - they wear baseball caps in ridiculous situations. As opposed to those "elite" Democrats who wouldn't wear one.
Every time someone makes fun of his hair or his orange make-up or his ugly suits or the weird way he stands or his over-long ties or how fat he is -- and I have done all those things -- they trivialize the unbelievable danger that he presents.
They also behave like Trump, who regularly dismisses others on the basis of their looks or their laugh or whatever.
We all know he’s grotesque in every way possible. We’ve known it for a long time. The orange jokes, the hair jokes, the suit jokes, the ego jokes and all the other jokes were old and stale years ago. That these observations keep getting made as though new is tiring and, as you say, distracting from the actual problems and dangers.
In a little over a month, Trump, Musk and their minions have:
De-stabilized, and possibly overturned, the post-WW2 world order
Laid off over 200,000 federal workers and offered buyouts that were accepted by 75,000 more without proper review of what these people's jobs entail and no thought for how we'll get along without, you know, people who look after our nuclear weapons
Made program cuts that will lead directly (free link to NY Times article on USAID cuts) to hundreds of thousands of deaths (or more) and many more cases of illness and disability
Put the US and probably the world at significantly greater risk of a bird flu epidemic
Put the US at significantly greater risk of a measles epidemic
Designated English as the official language of the US (we have never before had an official language, and this is a xenophobic step toward more marginalization of people not fluent in English and a swipe at states like mine that try to include them by, for instance, printing voting information and ballots in multiple languages)
Threatened to impeach federal judges that rule against the administration, a step toward bringing that branch of government to heel
Threatened to shred the already weak American social safety net by cutting Medicaid (and Musk referred to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme)
That's just off the top of my head, and I've been avoiding the news almost as much as I've been avoiding these threads. There's a lot more, so much more, that will lead misery and death and shove the US further down the road to oligarchy and strong-man government.
But sure, go ahead and talk about Trump trying to hide his double chin, as if that were unique to him rather than something everyone who makes a living based on their appearance and/or vibe didn't do.
First of all, it’s clear that Trump sees everything from the point of view of a businessman. The only way he knows of getting the result he wants is in “the deal”. And his method is bullying, lying, bribing, insulting his opponent. He doesn’t appear to comprehend the meaning of diplomacy.
..Snip..
Not all business people run their businesses by bullying anyone they perceive as weak. There are plenty of successful businesses who work with their stakeholders for mutual benefit. Mr Trump is a disgrace to the business community as well as a disgrace to the Oval Office.
No business person runs their business the way Trump and Musk have attacked the US public sector, at least not for any length of time. They may be engaged in asset stripping, but when a business is taken over by someone wanting to strip it of assets then that's not running that business either.
No sane business person randomly sacks a load of the workforce without first determining what they do, how they benefit the business (or, not) and what the impact on them not being there would be. It costs a lot of money to fire someone, even more if they feel aggrieved and sue for unfair dismissal. It costs even more to find you've just fired someone vital to running the business and you need to hire someone else (and, most people would be going straight to their lawyer if they found out they'd been fired because the boss said the job isn't needed only to find out that they're shortly after looking for a replacement). That way of doing business is just spending a lot of money to significantly reduce business viability.
Comments
It begins: “Dear Donald. On second thoughts ….”
Looks like that may have been a well-informed comment.
I didn't know that.
I mean, I can completely understand the desire to maintain the American alliance. The alternative is very demanding and rather frightening. And there is the hope that MAGA will not always be in charge. So I am not saying that the Rutte/Starmer line is indefensible. But it has considerable moral and practical hazards.
The defence of Ukraine, serious and important though that is, may be just a pawn in Trump’s wider game. As I said elsewhere, I think he seeks partnership with Russia to act as a brake on Chinese expansionism. Europe? Forget it. Not so important. NATO? A waste of US dollars given a rapprochement with Russia.
Sure. But I think Macron is more prepared to consider the idea that NATO is unsalvageable and that Europe may have to undertake its own defence independent of (and possibly even in opposition to) the USA.
Already it seems to be that in terms of foreign relations it is not as clear as it was that it is better for the UK and Europe to be closer to the USA than to China. China's domestic policy is still much worse than that of the US but the Trump/Putin rapprochement makes the US and its allies ever-more-vulnerable to Russian interference. China, ISTM, is less likely to interfere in European elections or assassinate people with novichok (though I may be wrong).
How long will it take, and how much will it cost, for Europe to develop and deploy a replacement for GPS? Or the intelligence from US satellite observations and intercepts? Or, to replace US supplied weapons with European produced equivalents? Almost certainly much longer than 4 years, by which time Trump shouldn't be President. It's essential that European nations maintain a constructive and friendly relationship with the US, even if it's impossible to work with Trump.
First of all, it’s clear that Trump sees everything from the point of view of a businessman. The only way he knows of getting the result he wants is in “the deal”. And his method is bullying, lying, bribing, insulting his opponent. He doesn’t appear to comprehend the meaning of diplomacy.
Second, it’s pretty clear now following the meeting with President Zelensky that his attitude is driven by personal envy. Zelensky is everything Trump probably wishes he was. He is young, fit, attractive, seems to be extremely popular at home. He’s a war leader, he’s been living in a country with bombs falling all around, he’s been to the front line. Everything Trump wants to be but is not. Zelensky’s reported reply when he was offered an evacuation flight at the beginning of the war: “I need ammunition, not a ride” probably sticks in Trump’s craw.
But also, afaict what Starmer has been talking about is a softened version of Trump's call for an immediate settlement rather than further financial support for an extended period of fighting.
Is that what you're referring to @chrisstiles ?
The idea seems to be to circumvent Trump, his rapacity, hate, and lunacy...
@Sparrow - you're certainly right that, in virtually every respect, Zelenskyy is a far better person than the God-Emperor.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/02/odesa-ukraine-russian-airstrikes-donald-trump-vladimir-putin
Gods damn both these evil men to the hell they have created for others.
Yes.
Not really, given they are putting the ceasefire deal to Trump (and it relies on unsaid US backing) it's an attempt to square his call for an immediate ceasefire.
To what extent is US security also predicated on access to NaTo intelligence and European states acting as a buffer to Russia ?
OK - point taken.
Probably the question at the moment is where the US sees the threat to their security. Is Russia still seen as the main threat? I suspect not - there are growing concerns about China, and Europe doesn't serve as a buffer to Chinese power in the way we were between the Soviet Union and US. If Trump isn't seeing Russia as a threat to his interests then the loss of European support isn't going to be seen as a big problem for him.
There are a bunch of bases and installations where the primary benefit is to the US; in terms of the UK I'm thinking of Lankenheath, Menwith Hill, Cat Hill, Akrotiri, all of which probably benefit the US far more than the UK. Similarly for the 'Iron Dome' that Trump is talking about constructing, there is already an existing system in place where the interceptors are currently in Poland and the associated tracking radar is in the UK.
I’d agree with 3/4 - Akrotiri is more use to Britain overall I’d argue but this isn’t really the place to discuss it. I’d add Croughton though.
Perhaps a bit short on specifics but interesting that the first step is about military aid continuation while the war is ongoing. Steps 2 to 4 are all about what would be necessary to maintain any peace deal.
And Zelenskyy got to visit the King wearing his traditional attire. The King didn’t seem to regard that as an offence to the dignity of his office. (Unlike “King” Trump.)
Trumps response is awaited with interest.
We can hope, anyway.
You mean Galileo? It exists.
Absolutely.
Correct me if I am wrong but it wasn't Trump who criticised Zelenskyy's clothing.
The four step plan is very good but it does not include a plan to persuade Putin to stop fighting. Starmer says that he doesn't trust Putin and he may well be right not to do so. However, Putin might well be reluctant to negotiate with anyone who says they don't trust him. I suspect that only Trump can get Putin to agree to stop fighting but to do that he has to avoid helping Ukraine gain an advantage.
It was, however, one of Trump's pet pool reporters from a far right outlet now he's purged the AP.
It was a MAGA reporter voicing a long running MAGA criticism about Zekenskyy’s clothing. I don’t know whether or not it was orchestrated. There was a report that White House staffers requested that he wear a suit and were offended that he did not. The request certainly implies a Trump request to put pressure on. Nobody else has asked that.
Then Vance jumped on the “disrespect” bandwagon. I’m pretty sure that was orchestrated, given what followed.
So I think accusations of disrespect were part of the orchestration.
On your second point. I’m sure Putin would like Trump to be the dealmaker and enforcer on Zelenskyy. The European leaders have told him what an acceptable deal should contain.
So, if he doubles down, which he may, that means he has to try to enforce his will on Europe. Which he could try to do by threatening to withdraw from NATO. Let’s see. I think that’s what Ursula von der Leyen (E.C. President) was hinting at.
I think NATO and the European countries are prepared for it. Not militarily yet. But certainly politically. That’s what the “coalition of the willing” means. Other countries may have also indicated their willingness to step in too.
Bluff and double-bluff? Maybe. But maybe they have wrong-footed Trump?
Most chipsets that implement such things support multiple GNSS and can take signals from more than one GNSS constellation. GPS and Glonass are most common as they are the oldest constellations, but plenty of phones support Galileo (most non-SE iPhone models post iPhone 8 have it, as an example).
Noting this puts you on the same level as that reporter. Nice.
No doubt he was immaculately coiffed as usual.
We are not so stupid or complacent here in the Antipodes to be unaware of just how dangerous he is.
As for his grotesque appearance that in fact serves to magnify the horror that is unfolding before our eyes.
Trust me it isn’t funny and at the risk of belabouring the point I wonder what his adoring hordes
( excluding flunkies such as Musk, Vance etc) think about their hero now.
I guess I'm fortunate I have people like you to explain things to me.
As for those who “appear grotesque” it’s all in the eye of the beholder.
The one positive is that not having a telly I don’t have to look at the bastard.
What exactly do you find grotesque about Trump's appearance?
The coiffure is absurd but not grotesque, as is the orange makeup.
Something I'll have to rethink in future.
Dafyd Hell Host
And the weird baby-pout expression. I don't think I've ever seen a photo of him genuinely smiling.
I think the baby-pout mouth is a deliberate attempt to try and tauten his double chin. Also he always holds his head peculiarly high like he is looking down on everyone else.
I still think he's an Alien Overlord, created to resemble a human being, by aliens who didn't get it quite right...
A bit early for that, but at least he's trying to deal sensibly a situation not of his making. His cautious and pragmatic approach may well work - thank gods we have a grown-up as PM, despite his faults and failings, and those who regard him as an evil socialist dictator...
That's how the US right demonstrates their connection to the "common man" - they wear baseball caps in ridiculous situations. As opposed to those "elite" Democrats who wouldn't wear one.
We all know he’s grotesque in every way possible. We’ve known it for a long time. The orange jokes, the hair jokes, the suit jokes, the ego jokes and all the other jokes were old and stale years ago. That these observations keep getting made as though new is tiring and, as you say, distracting from the actual problems and dangers.
That's just off the top of my head, and I've been avoiding the news almost as much as I've been avoiding these threads. There's a lot more, so much more, that will lead misery and death and shove the US further down the road to oligarchy and strong-man government.
But sure, go ahead and talk about Trump trying to hide his double chin, as if that were unique to him rather than something everyone who makes a living based on their appearance and/or vibe didn't do.
Not all business people run their businesses by bullying anyone they perceive as weak. There are plenty of successful businesses who work with their stakeholders for mutual benefit. Mr Trump is a disgrace to the business community as well as a disgrace to the Oval Office.
No sane business person randomly sacks a load of the workforce without first determining what they do, how they benefit the business (or, not) and what the impact on them not being there would be. It costs a lot of money to fire someone, even more if they feel aggrieved and sue for unfair dismissal. It costs even more to find you've just fired someone vital to running the business and you need to hire someone else (and, most people would be going straight to their lawyer if they found out they'd been fired because the boss said the job isn't needed only to find out that they're shortly after looking for a replacement). That way of doing business is just spending a lot of money to significantly reduce business viability.