Can I ask who you think the UK needs to defend itself from?
I’m American, and our politicians talk constantly about needing to defend ourselves, but I find that they actually usually mean we need to be aggressive and pick fights the world over. As a result of this, I don’t trust my government when they say we need to defend ourselves.
But I recognize the US is actually not the same as the UK, so that’s why I’m asking you: is there a credible threat to the UK that is worth making plans against, including a larger and more well-equipped military? And if so, who from?
Anyone sane would agree with you. This is “war”
between oligarchs and the very rich. It shouldn’t involve everyone else. I’d like to see gladiatorial solutions to conflicts. Put Starmer in a cage with Putin if they really want to wage “war” on each other. I’m sure most Russians don’t want war and just want to go about their lives like the rest of us.
The point I’m trying to make is that Ukraine was invaded, and the people there are trying to defend their homes and families from the invading army. They’re not fighting because some rich oligarch told them to.
Then who triggered the invasion? A whole race of evil Russians who do it because… because… they’re evil Russians? I don’t think so.
Wars are always caused by the ruling classes whether oligarchs, millionaires, aristocrats or whomever. They don’t end up fighting but leave it up
to the ordinary people to give their lives. Those Ukrainians dying are certainly not the rich. Ukrainian rich are all in places like the South of France and LA.
Putin triggered the invasion by ordering it. It’s really not as complex as you’re making out. If my neighbourhood was being invaded, I’d like to think I’d take up arms to defend it rather than sitting around complaining about oligarchs. But you do you.
A bit like all those young men slaughtered in the World Wars (and about every war, really). When the lord of the manor or the king or your priest tells you to sign up and fight, you fight to defend their property. When foreign armies invade, they’re not after the houses and property of the poor or to take over local communities for some vague reason. They’re commanded to go after after the land and property of the rich (for their king or oligarch). It’s not hard to understand that. But, as you say, you go and do you and die for your abstract country, king and god.
So when the Nazis were sweeping through Eastern Europe, burning down people’s homes, sending people to death camps… anyone who resisted that was, in your opinion, a toadying bootlicker who just wanted to keep the oligarchs happy. Am I getting it right?
As an island nation, Britain is dependent on free sea trade for its survival. Just recently the Navy had to deal with Yemeni maniacs who fired missiles at British shipping, including picking a fight with a British Destroyer. Along the trade route, there is a high amount of piracy from East Africa and India. Iran keeps trying to board vessels illegally unless they have a naval escort to deliver warning shots. In Asia, China is making big moves to cut off major trading routes in order to gain more leverage. Again more piracy in that region.
Over to the West, there are narco subs crossing the Atlantic to deliver dangerous chemicals by the ton, and Russia has been trying to get at undersea cables everywhere.
I feel I should point out: Ansar Allah (the people you refer to as “Yemeni maniacs”) don’t attack every ship that passes by. They are quite selective, only attacking ships with ties to Israel. The reason Ansar Allah are doing this is to try to stop the genocide in Gaza, and from where I’m standing, they look like heroes for it. If you want British ships to stop being shot at by Ansar Allah, the answer is for British companies to stop trading with Israel. Which is the morally correct position to take as well, that no one should be trading with Israel until the genocide stops.
MV True Confidence, owned Liberia, operated Greece, flagged Barbados, sailing China to Saudi Arabia then Jordan, personnel Vietnam, Sri Lanka, India, Philippines, Nepal.
Hmm, the Wikipedia article about this ship is odd. Check out this paragraph: “The Houthis claimed that the vessel was American-owned, however a spokesman for the ship’s owners rejected the claim, saying it had no relation with American entities.[6] The vessel’s owners, the company True Confidence Shipping, is registered in Liberia, and she is operated by the Greece-based organization Third January Maritime. Both firms confirmed that they were unrelated to the United States. However, until 24 February 2024 the vessel was connected to the Los Angeles-based Oaktree Capital Management.[6][18]”
So, we have True Confidence Shipping being the owners of a single ship, the MV True Confidence. (I looked up True Confidence Shipping, they really do only own the one ship.) I don’t know whether it’s common in maritime shipping to have only one ship per shipping company, but it seems a little odd to me.
Furthermore, until February 24, 2024, the vessel had ties to an american firm, Oaktree Capital Management. I think this is true, as I’ve seen this claim in quite a few articles about the incident.
So let’s think about the timing here: February 24, the ship changed ownership. 11 days later, on March 6, it was attacked by Ansar Allah, who claims they attacked it because it’s an american ship. It seems to me we have two options: first, the ship really did change hands in those 11 days between February 24 and March 6, and Ansar Allah had outdated information, leading to a mistaken attack. This is possible. The second option is that the so-called ownership change was really just adding a shell company and Ansar Allah saw right through that and attacked anyway. Knowing what I know about capital and american firms, this option seems very plausible to me, but without a lot more time researching, and some real, actual knowledge about maritime shipping, I have no way of knowing.
So yeah, take your pick: Ansar Allah made an honest (and easy-to-make) mistake or they saw through an attempt to sneak an american vessel by them using a shell company. Or, I guess, you could choose to believe that it’s neither of these options and Ansar Allah are just “Yemeni maniacs” trying to cause trouble because “they hate us for our freedom” or some such nonsense. You’re welcome to believe that too.
I’ve got a lot of coworkers from Eastern Europe, including Russia and Ukraine. As someone in the UK I’m not quite as scared as them of my country literally being annexed, but I don’t want a belligerent superpower invading its way across Europe. That’s happened before, less than 100 years ago. If you think that Putin “just wants Donbas” (just like he only wanted Crimea before), then you really need to read a history book.
Russia is not waging a war against Europe, but against Ukraine. They are literally explicitly not waging a war against Europe to prevent escalation. And that’s also why all European attempts to (openly) send soldiers to Ukraine failed. Cause none of the European countries wants to go to war with Russia, and none of their leaderships really think that Russia is a military threat to them.
Russia is not waging a war against Europe, but against Ukraine
Ukraine is in Europe.
They are literally explicitly not waging a war against Europe
Pro-war Russians often talk about the idea that they’re not just fighting Ukraine but the whole of NATO.
none of their leaderships really think that Russia is a military threat to them
If that’s true then why have many European countries been making plans to vastly increase their defence spending? They’ve been doing this because of the threat that Russia poses.
I read an article about Germany’s chief of defence. Apparently Russia is now producing about 1,500 tanks every year. The German chief of defence said “not every single tank is going to [the war in] Ukraine, but it’s also going in stocks and into new military structures always facing the West”. Evidence like this supports his belief that Russia’s stockpiles “could be used for an attack on Nato Baltic state members by 2029 or even earlier”.
Ukraine is not the whole of Europe or a majority of Europe. It’s 1 country in Europe.
the idea
The ideas don’t matter, reality does. Russia is not fighting NATO because the attacks on NATO or Russian territory have been extremely limited, and most of the attacks on Russian territory or infrastructure are carried out by Ukraine.
If that’s true then why have many European countries been making plans to vastly increase their defence spending?
That’s the standard neoliberal playbook. Neoliberals have been overspending on war and invading every part of the planet since the end of WW2. Pretending that neoliberals increasing war spending is a sign of greater national security threats is like saying that the sun rising from the east is a sign that it’s going to rain today.
The current crop of eurolibs is in simple terms using the war in Ukraine as a pretense to militarise. If they were so worried about an imminent Russian invasion or threat after Ukraine, they would not be pouring their already strained reserves to commit genocide in Palestine. Instead they would be conserving resources.
Neoliberals have been overspending on war and invading every part of the planet since the end of WW2.
I don’t think Europe plans to invade anywhere. Meanwhile Russia actually is invading Europe (Ukraine is part of Europe).
Look at how the European countries that are increasing their defence spending the most (Poland, the Baltics) are the ones next to Russia. The ones who are most likely to be attacked by Russia.
If they were so worried about an imminent Russian invasion or threat after Ukraine, they would not be pouring their already strained reserves to commit genocide in Palestine. Instead they would be conserving resources.
I don’t think European countries are “pouring their already strained reserves to commit genocide in Palestine”. Are European countries donating weapons to Israel? I think the US has given military aid to Israel, but I don’t know if Europe has.
Recently there was a statement from the UK, France, and Canada, where they said that Israel’s current action in Gaza is wrong. Maybe these countries should do more to stop what Israel is doing. Maybe they should sanction Israel. I think that could make sense.
Have I been imagining the euro-american wars and colonialism in the middle east then? The ones literally ongoing right now?
Look at how the European countries that are increasing their defence spending the most (Poland, the Baltics) are the ones next to Russia
And these are also the most neoliberalised, nationalistic and militantly anti-communist states in europe. And these were heavily armed states well before the Russian involvement in Ukraine.
The doctrine of “peace through strength” has scarcely ever worked out, especially not in europe. Modern European history is a basket case of out-of-control arms races.
Are European countries donating weapons to Israel?
Literally yes. Germany is a major one. And Britain helps with reconnaissance and supplying parts for things like F35s.
Recently there was a statement from the UK, France, and Canada, where they said that Israel’s current action in Gaza is wrong
Congratulations to the European politicians I guess for realising that maybe giving unconditional public support for fascism has a negative effect on your optics.
I guess they can move on to trying to hide better their assistance to israel. Perhaps they can launder it through Al jolani and his dictatorship in Syria. He did recently meet with the European heads of states, and he did afterwards announce that he would collaborate with israel. Not to mention that the fall of baathism in Syria severely negatively impacts the logistics of supplying the Palestinian resistance. So even if jolani did nothing else, by proping him up, the European states can ensure that no one can actually stop Israeli soldiers on the ground.
If you think Europe should do more to stop what Israel is doing in Gaza, and the West Bank, then I think that is fair. Europe probably should do more on that front.
Surely though that’s a separate issue to the issue of the UK spending more on defence to deter aggression from Russia.
If you think Europe should do more to stop what Israel is doing in Gaza
They should start by not supplying Israel and America with military support and parts.
Surely though that’s a separate issue to the issue of the UK spending more on defence to deter aggression from Russia.
Is it? The European countries have fought scarcely any defensive wars since ww2. Do you think the weapons built today in the name of defending against Russia will not be used for Europe’s next colonial adventures?
Not to mention, everytime europe arms itself, other countries also arm themselves in response. And this time, the Europeans don’t even have the industrial capacity to actually arm themselves for a peer to peer conflict (only for suppressing insurgents in colonies). They really just want to shovel money to consultants and the MIC.
Can I ask who you think the UK needs to defend itself from?
I’m American, and our politicians talk constantly about needing to defend ourselves, but I find that they actually usually mean we need to be aggressive and pick fights the world over. As a result of this, I don’t trust my government when they say we need to defend ourselves.
But I recognize the US is actually not the same as the UK, so that’s why I’m asking you: is there a credible threat to the UK that is worth making plans against, including a larger and more well-equipped military? And if so, who from?
Anyone sane would agree with you. This is “war” between oligarchs and the very rich. It shouldn’t involve everyone else. I’d like to see gladiatorial solutions to conflicts. Put Starmer in a cage with Putin if they really want to wage “war” on each other. I’m sure most Russians don’t want war and just want to go about their lives like the rest of us.
TIL everyone who’s died in Ukraine so far is a rich oligarch.
Not quite sure what point you’re trying to make but maybe read what I wrote with a little more care perhaps?
The point I’m trying to make is that Ukraine was invaded, and the people there are trying to defend their homes and families from the invading army. They’re not fighting because some rich oligarch told them to.
Then who triggered the invasion? A whole race of evil Russians who do it because… because… they’re evil Russians? I don’t think so.
Wars are always caused by the ruling classes whether oligarchs, millionaires, aristocrats or whomever. They don’t end up fighting but leave it up to the ordinary people to give their lives. Those Ukrainians dying are certainly not the rich. Ukrainian rich are all in places like the South of France and LA.
Putin triggered the invasion by ordering it. It’s really not as complex as you’re making out. If my neighbourhood was being invaded, I’d like to think I’d take up arms to defend it rather than sitting around complaining about oligarchs. But you do you.
A bit like all those young men slaughtered in the World Wars (and about every war, really). When the lord of the manor or the king or your priest tells you to sign up and fight, you fight to defend their property. When foreign armies invade, they’re not after the houses and property of the poor or to take over local communities for some vague reason. They’re commanded to go after after the land and property of the rich (for their king or oligarch). It’s not hard to understand that. But, as you say, you go and do you and die for your abstract country, king and god.
So when the Nazis were sweeping through Eastern Europe, burning down people’s homes, sending people to death camps… anyone who resisted that was, in your opinion, a toadying bootlicker who just wanted to keep the oligarchs happy. Am I getting it right?
As an island nation, Britain is dependent on free sea trade for its survival. Just recently the Navy had to deal with Yemeni maniacs who fired missiles at British shipping, including picking a fight with a British Destroyer. Along the trade route, there is a high amount of piracy from East Africa and India. Iran keeps trying to board vessels illegally unless they have a naval escort to deliver warning shots. In Asia, China is making big moves to cut off major trading routes in order to gain more leverage. Again more piracy in that region.
Over to the West, there are narco subs crossing the Atlantic to deliver dangerous chemicals by the ton, and Russia has been trying to get at undersea cables everywhere.
I feel I should point out: Ansar Allah (the people you refer to as “Yemeni maniacs”) don’t attack every ship that passes by. They are quite selective, only attacking ships with ties to Israel. The reason Ansar Allah are doing this is to try to stop the genocide in Gaza, and from where I’m standing, they look like heroes for it. If you want British ships to stop being shot at by Ansar Allah, the answer is for British companies to stop trading with Israel. Which is the morally correct position to take as well, that no one should be trading with Israel until the genocide stops.
And yet they still managed to attack ships that were not operated by Israel, owned by Israel, or visiting Israel. Funny that.
I’ve seen your claim before, but I’ve never seen any evidence for it.
Would you mind finding for me the name of a ship attacked by Ansar Allah that had no ties to Israel?
MV True Confidence, owned Liberia, operated Greece, flagged Barbados, sailing China to Saudi Arabia then Jordan, personnel Vietnam, Sri Lanka, India, Philippines, Nepal.
3 crew murdered.
Hmm, the Wikipedia article about this ship is odd. Check out this paragraph: “The Houthis claimed that the vessel was American-owned, however a spokesman for the ship’s owners rejected the claim, saying it had no relation with American entities.[6] The vessel’s owners, the company True Confidence Shipping, is registered in Liberia, and she is operated by the Greece-based organization Third January Maritime. Both firms confirmed that they were unrelated to the United States. However, until 24 February 2024 the vessel was connected to the Los Angeles-based Oaktree Capital Management.[6][18]”
So, we have True Confidence Shipping being the owners of a single ship, the MV True Confidence. (I looked up True Confidence Shipping, they really do only own the one ship.) I don’t know whether it’s common in maritime shipping to have only one ship per shipping company, but it seems a little odd to me.
Furthermore, until February 24, 2024, the vessel had ties to an american firm, Oaktree Capital Management. I think this is true, as I’ve seen this claim in quite a few articles about the incident.
So let’s think about the timing here: February 24, the ship changed ownership. 11 days later, on March 6, it was attacked by Ansar Allah, who claims they attacked it because it’s an american ship. It seems to me we have two options: first, the ship really did change hands in those 11 days between February 24 and March 6, and Ansar Allah had outdated information, leading to a mistaken attack. This is possible. The second option is that the so-called ownership change was really just adding a shell company and Ansar Allah saw right through that and attacked anyway. Knowing what I know about capital and american firms, this option seems very plausible to me, but without a lot more time researching, and some real, actual knowledge about maritime shipping, I have no way of knowing.
So yeah, take your pick: Ansar Allah made an honest (and easy-to-make) mistake or they saw through an attempt to sneak an american vessel by them using a shell company. Or, I guess, you could choose to believe that it’s neither of these options and Ansar Allah are just “Yemeni maniacs” trying to cause trouble because “they hate us for our freedom” or some such nonsense. You’re welcome to believe that too.
Russia is already waging a war against Europe. Who knows how far they would go if European militaries didn’t exist to deter them.
Do you really, truly, in your heart-of-hearts believe that Russia is a military danger to the UK?
I’ve got a lot of coworkers from Eastern Europe, including Russia and Ukraine. As someone in the UK I’m not quite as scared as them of my country literally being annexed, but I don’t want a belligerent superpower invading its way across Europe. That’s happened before, less than 100 years ago. If you think that Putin “just wants Donbas” (just like he only wanted Crimea before), then you really need to read a history book.
That’s like asking if I believe that ricin is a danger to humans
Russia is not waging a war against Europe, but against Ukraine. They are literally explicitly not waging a war against Europe to prevent escalation. And that’s also why all European attempts to (openly) send soldiers to Ukraine failed. Cause none of the European countries wants to go to war with Russia, and none of their leaderships really think that Russia is a military threat to them.
Ukraine is in Europe.
Pro-war Russians often talk about the idea that they’re not just fighting Ukraine but the whole of NATO.
If that’s true then why have many European countries been making plans to vastly increase their defence spending? They’ve been doing this because of the threat that Russia poses.
I read an article about Germany’s chief of defence. Apparently Russia is now producing about 1,500 tanks every year. The German chief of defence said “not every single tank is going to [the war in] Ukraine, but it’s also going in stocks and into new military structures always facing the West”. Evidence like this supports his belief that Russia’s stockpiles “could be used for an attack on Nato Baltic state members by 2029 or even earlier”.
Ukraine is not the whole of Europe or a majority of Europe. It’s 1 country in Europe.
The ideas don’t matter, reality does. Russia is not fighting NATO because the attacks on NATO or Russian territory have been extremely limited, and most of the attacks on Russian territory or infrastructure are carried out by Ukraine.
That’s the standard neoliberal playbook. Neoliberals have been overspending on war and invading every part of the planet since the end of WW2. Pretending that neoliberals increasing war spending is a sign of greater national security threats is like saying that the sun rising from the east is a sign that it’s going to rain today.
The current crop of eurolibs is in simple terms using the war in Ukraine as a pretense to militarise. If they were so worried about an imminent Russian invasion or threat after Ukraine, they would not be pouring their already strained reserves to commit genocide in Palestine. Instead they would be conserving resources.
I don’t think Europe plans to invade anywhere. Meanwhile Russia actually is invading Europe (Ukraine is part of Europe).
Look at how the European countries that are increasing their defence spending the most (Poland, the Baltics) are the ones next to Russia. The ones who are most likely to be attacked by Russia.
I don’t think European countries are “pouring their already strained reserves to commit genocide in Palestine”. Are European countries donating weapons to Israel? I think the US has given military aid to Israel, but I don’t know if Europe has.
Recently there was a statement from the UK, France, and Canada, where they said that Israel’s current action in Gaza is wrong. Maybe these countries should do more to stop what Israel is doing. Maybe they should sanction Israel. I think that could make sense.
Have I been imagining the euro-american wars and colonialism in the middle east then? The ones literally ongoing right now?
And these are also the most neoliberalised, nationalistic and militantly anti-communist states in europe. And these were heavily armed states well before the Russian involvement in Ukraine.
The doctrine of “peace through strength” has scarcely ever worked out, especially not in europe. Modern European history is a basket case of out-of-control arms races.
Literally yes. Germany is a major one. And Britain helps with reconnaissance and supplying parts for things like F35s.
Congratulations to the European politicians I guess for realising that maybe giving unconditional public support for fascism has a negative effect on your optics.
I guess they can move on to trying to hide better their assistance to israel. Perhaps they can launder it through Al jolani and his dictatorship in Syria. He did recently meet with the European heads of states, and he did afterwards announce that he would collaborate with israel. Not to mention that the fall of baathism in Syria severely negatively impacts the logistics of supplying the Palestinian resistance. So even if jolani did nothing else, by proping him up, the European states can ensure that no one can actually stop Israeli soldiers on the ground.
If you think Europe should do more to stop what Israel is doing in Gaza, and the West Bank, then I think that is fair. Europe probably should do more on that front.
Surely though that’s a separate issue to the issue of the UK spending more on defence to deter aggression from Russia.
They should start by not supplying Israel and America with military support and parts.
Is it? The European countries have fought scarcely any defensive wars since ww2. Do you think the weapons built today in the name of defending against Russia will not be used for Europe’s next colonial adventures?
Not to mention, everytime europe arms itself, other countries also arm themselves in response. And this time, the Europeans don’t even have the industrial capacity to actually arm themselves for a peer to peer conflict (only for suppressing insurgents in colonies). They really just want to shovel money to consultants and the MIC.