Blog powered by Typepad

« This says it all with wit and humour | Main | Let me imagine »

Tuesday, 04 June 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"Merkel all but announced that Germany, or for that matter Europe itself, is no longer really an ally of the United States"

But why do you attribute the cause of that to her, Germany, and Europe?

Trump's US caused it. Period.

As for the choice, we agree on something at last! Yankee lackey vs leader of the European resistance. Some choice.

Btw, glad you've ditched the option of Blighty being an independent self-reliant nation, wise move.

"How the West was lost". Great name for a book.


Loz, Merkel took a personal decision to allow migrants into the EU. People have been killed because of her decision. Where was the democracy in her decision. Once the Islamic fascists settle in the real carnage wil begin.

America rather than Germany, please. In peace-time they make better films and better burgers, and in war they hit harder. Plus we speak a slightly more similar language.

The Guardian belched the "President’s visit (to) “a brutal assault… on progressive values.”

I certainly hope so! The West needs more of it if it is to survive.

Whitewall, a Trump protester said today on TV that Trump had moved the US Palestinian Embassy to Jerusalem. Says it all about the calibre of protesters.

"Trump's US caused it."

Jesus Christ SoD you're sounding like Bob.

So, Trumps managed that in a mere 2 years, 133 days, 7 hours, 24 minutes?

Hell Lawrence it took GW and Obama sixteen full years to even get the paperwork arranged so that Trump could sign it and sell her petrol.

If Trump caused it he must have a time machine, this attitude has been evident for years. Notice that Germany did not cut its defence spending on Trump's election, or even when he walked down the steps from Trump tower. They'd been welching
on their agreements for many years.
As to our choice, we could be independent like Switzerland.
But it would be better with allies.
So do we ally with people who don't speak the same language as us or each other, or do we prefer allies that speak our language?
Do we ally with peoples with an entirely different legal system to ours, or people's with a similar one?
Do we ally with peoples with a history of welching on agreements (see above for one example) or with a history of keeping them?
Given that we are an island do we prefer allies who we can not reach by sea of ones we can?
Do you prefer allies that are economically stagnant or growing steadily.
I can see no reason for preferring the first option for any of the above choices.
So go for alliances with the Commonwealth and the Anglosphere.

Well, ya'll might have noticed that there is a real and growing schism between America and all our traditional allies. And I must protest the use of the term "Trump's US". No one thinks it belongs to him or he would have already sold it. He's only a public servant, even if it's mostly a public servant of Russia.

The Jerries were happy enough being disarmed after losing the war, so long as someone provided the security. The victor and new world policeman pays for security after the armistice if lasting peace is to be attained. Any other arrangement that forces the loser to pay leads to rebellion and conflict again sooner or later. The Versailles treaty is the prime example of "sooner", and what is just beginning with Germany re-arming and mobilising is likely to be the prime example of "later".

The conflict will likely be "hot air" rather than "cold steel", but conflict nevertheless.

America stands alone against the world today. If Blighty won't budge from the Iran deal, continues trade with China including Huawei, refuses "coalitions of the willing", etc., and Blighty is the closest of the traditional friends of America, then what friends and allies does the US have any more? MBS?

You've got Rocketman, China, Russia, the mad Mullahs, and Jerries, all on your Jack Jones. I just don't get why anyone would want to do that without a strong possie of friends, let alone none.

I didn't want it like this. The Trump and Brexit phenomena not in my name. I was happy with NATO, EU, Blighty as the US's rep in Europe. Whining about the Jerries 1.1% GDP spend on defence was easy, lazy blog comment fodder, but given a straight choice, who'd prefer the Jerries spending 11% of GDP on defence?!


Loz, the Jerries were not happy to lose the war as they failed to wipe out all the Jews and disabled on the planet. They are now in an economic position to threaten the British economy and that must be opposed even if we have to fight again. Me and your Dad will have to get our long John's and mess tins out of the wardrope.


This split has been happening for a lot longer than Mr. Trump or M. Merkel.

In little bits on a lot of fronts. Recent events are just making it larger and more visible

There is a large difference between the European and American way economic regulation and management. For the sake of argument, if we assume, they are equally effective in a vacuum, they are incompatible at the same place and time.

One possibility for the UK is to be the middle man, translating one to the other thus preventing conflicts, and taking a reasonable percentage on the traffic. Managed right Brexit could be a major boon for the UK. Better than a hard commitment either way.

As much as we might want it: status quo is not an option.

"what friends and allies does the US have any more"

The "Great Southland" aka Australia for one.

Blood is thicker than water, our natural alliances are with the US, Oz/NZ and oddly enough, France.

Whilst VDH might be over-egging the pudding a little bit he's not wholly wrong.

Brexit will permit the much needed re-alignment.

A free independent country choosing alliances with its cultural soulmates.

The whole dalliance with the EEC/EU has been a strategic disaster of historic, epic magnitude.

Hopefully it will soon end.

" I was happy with NATO, EU, Blighty as the US's rep in Europe"

Sod your position is somewhat weakened by being completely impossible, maintainig the status quo was never an option.

It was either out or stay in and be irretrievably sucked into the ever increasing union leading to a wholesale negation of all sovereignty to the unelected European Commission and the likes of Herr Selmayr.

As the Germans increasingly control all the levers of power in that arrangement, it would have been a de facto surrender to them, and one which could only have ended in wholsesale blood letting again.

Think yourself lucky it went the rigth way.

"This split has been happening for a lot longer than Mr. Trump or M. Merkel. In little bits on a lot of fronts. Recent events are just making it larger and more visible"

Any hard evidence of that? Obama and Merkel were all cuddles and kisses.
Actions have consequences: Take responsibility for Brexit and Trump.

And by trying to wriggle off the hook you betray your discomfort with being on it.

One possibility for the UK is to be the middle man, translating one to the other thus preventing conflicts, and taking a reasonable percentage on the traffic. Managed right Brexit could be a major boon for the UK. Better than a hard commitment either way.

You've just described May's deal in a nutshell. The backstop arrangement would have allowed Northern Ireland frictionless, tariff free access to both the EU single market and the UK market, the only place in the world where that would be legal. US investment could've poured in there making goods and delivering services from one factory and one office respectively thereby supplying Blighty and Europe from one cost base. The stubborn Brexiteers blew it while the Remainers held out their hand of compromise.

As much as we might want it: status quo is not an option.

Sadly that's true enough.

Each state and individual, the we-we-we and the me-me-me, needs to prepare for the new status quo: -

(1) An isolated US with 7 failed unilateral foreign policy conflicts on its slate and no allies.

(2) A Europe lead by a re-armed and mobilised Germany.

(3) A Europe with deep supply chain integration with Russia and China.

(4) A resurgent Russia, emerging victorious from the US sanctions but all bitter and twisted, Stalingrad style, with revenge and malice tuned to a yet higher frequency.

(5) The new and only global superpower: China.

(6) A resurgent Iran, backed by Assad, Vlad, and Europe, emerging victorious from the US sanctions but all bitter and twisted ... see Russia above.

(7) A collapsed and deteriorating US economy with homeland social strife and no resources to prevent unrestrained immigration.

The Don needs to get some results on his one man show "Trump 7", and soon.

Otherwise, where next for the five eyes and Anglosphere?


1. What exactly are these "failed" policies
2. Germany isn't re-arming or mobilising
3. There are "deep supply chain integration" all over the place.
4. I doubt that the Russians are resurgent.
5. China will probably not be the only superpower.
6. The Iranians will collapse in social chaos.
7. Donald Trump will stop immigration.

All this of course is caused by me following in your footsteps and confusing opinions with facts!

"where next for the five eyes and Anglosphere?"

While I am ranting. In intelligence there are numerous levels of classification. And "five eyes" were somewhere towards the bottom.

Here are the "Trump 7", the Don's policy ends with means ...

1. Defeat Europe economically with tariffs.
2. Defeat Rocketman politically and economically with sanctions or military.
3. Defeat China economically and politically with tariffs and sanctions.
4. Defeat Putin economically and politically with tariffs and sanctions.
5. Defeat Iran politically and economically with sanctions or military.
6. Strengthen the US economy with mercantilism.
7. Stop illegal immigration to the US with a wall.

And what's the scores on the doors? Well here's a "status update", a phrase my project manager likes to throw at me from time to time ...

1. No result.
2. No result.
3. No result.
4. No result.
5. No result.
6. No result.
7. No result.

How long to go? Another year and half to the next election, then maybe another four.

Can he get even one of those things done in that time?

My project manager would be going ballistic with a "status update" like that.

And, the question I posed in the other thread: -

If none of those are achieved by the end of the Don's tenure, how much greater will America be compared to when he took office?


Another wrong-un from AEP ...

Cut through all the doom-loop crap. Get to where he makes the point that the US could impose the same two sovereignty no-nos on Blighty as the EU deal, namely: -

(1) Restraints on any deals Blighty does with China (read Customs Union by other means)

(2) Obligatory changes to UK law to implement Trump's "fair trade" level playing field (read "Single Market" by other means).

And AEP's strategy on these two matters that if accepted would turn any "take back control" "I want my country back" Brexiteer into an instant hypocrite?: We must resist.

Oh that'll be just fine then! Like Trump won't give Blighty the middle finger - maybe even slam some extra tariffs and sanctions on us for shunning him and wasting his time.

US lackey it will be for sure. Or else out on our ear with WTO terms across the board.

But inside the EU we have friends and allies already resisting the Franco-German hegemony and changing the balance of power in Brussels. Imagine what Blighty could do when sided with her friends and allies in Europe by way of changing the EU away from the Frankish status quo.

It's the only way forward for a people who truly seek freedom, at the we-we-we and me-me-me levels.


The comments to this entry are closed.